[fire_i]

Then... why bother furthering it?

[CanadianJeff]

I just love how rather then address the point you would rather try and call me a communist. Something that I can assure you I am not. I wouldn't go and try and kill anyone or dismember thier body for the "good".

I would do somethingl ike banish cocaine or cigaretes from the country for the sake of public health. I would also do something like put limits on the amount of trans fat it foods (an actual Canadian law btw) to help cut down on people getting fat.

It's nice that you want to turn this into a communist or libertarian finger pointing war but my point is simple.

There are substances that should not be allowed into Canadian society especially with our public health care system becuase they damage the public's health through both first hand and secondary means. The government has at times in Canada taken action for what they felt was better national health.

My point is that Pot does fall into the category of needing to be a controlled substance if introduced into the population becuase it does have health risks involved with it. Most noteably second hand smoke.

http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/stand ... en,00.html

I trust you find that an unbiast source of information.

At the very least if it was legalized I would push for a launch of a national campain to allow people to recongnize the implications of pot use in terms of pregnancy and general health.

And one thing that sadly is true regardless is that somking pot increases ones risk of cancer. Most noteably lung cancers. This is due to the fact that many of the same chemicals in cigartes are in pot.

Now then that being said I'll just repeat one last time. Stop the stupid finger pointing and fight the argument not the person.

[Murray_Smith]

CanadianJeff wrote:

I just love how rather then address the point you would rather try and call me a communist. Something that I can assure you I am not. I wouldn't go and try and kill anyone or dismember thier body for the "good".

I would do somethingl ike banish cocaine or cigaretes from the country for the sake of public health.

Isn't cocaine already banished from both the U.S. and Canada?

Quote:

I would also do something like put limits on the amount of trans fat it foods (an actual Canadian law btw) to help cut down on people getting fat.

The U.S. is already starting to completely phase them out.

Quote:

There are substances that should not be allowed into Canadian society especially with our public health care system becuase they damage the public's health through both first hand and secondary means. The government has at times in Canada taken action for what they felt was better national health.

The fact is, if a popular product is made illegal, and no comparable legal substitute for that product is made available, people will buy the illegal product. It was true with Prohibition, and it's true with the War on Drugs.

Quote:

My point is that Pot does fall into the category of needing to be a controlled substance if introduced into the population becuase it does have health risks involved with it. Most noteably second hand smoke.

Almost everyone who has been exposed to second-hand pot smoke in any significant quantity has also smoked pot. In fact, there is a term called "hotboxing" in which two or more people smoke pot in a small, unventilated area, like a car, for the sole purpose of inhaling second-hand smoke. If a person willfully exposes himself to smoke, and neither the smoke nor the source thereof poses any short-term danger, what right does the government have to outlaw it?

Quote:

http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_71944811_71962447_langId-en,00.html

I trust you find that an unbiast source of information.

Quote:

What evidence is there about the link between long-term use of marijuana and cancer?

The quality of the evidence suggesting a link between long-term use of marijuana and cancer is neither as strong nor as comprehensive as the evidence regarding tobacco and cancer. A number of studies have reported an increase in head, neck, lung and throat cancers. To date, no epidemiological studies have consistently confirmed an association between long-term marijuana use and cancer risk because there is no standard amount of THC (the main active ingredient in marijuana) in every marijuana cigarette.

Even if the amount of THC in weed was consistent, it would be irrelevant because THC is not a carcinogen.

Quote:

At the very least if it was legalized I would push for a launch of a national campain to allow people to recongnize the implications of pot use in terms of pregnancy and general health.

Were pot legalized, it would be best, I think, to have its legal status mirror that of tobacco. Usage by minors is prohibited, etc.

Quote:

And one thing that sadly is true regardless is that somking pot increases ones risk of cancer. Most noteably lung cancers.

You don't know that, and neither does your link. Heck, pot is sometimes used in treating cancer.

Quote:

This is due to the fact that many of the same chemicals in cigartes are in pot.

That could mean anything. Of course pot and tobacco have some chemicals in common. They're both plants.

Quote:

Now then that being said I'll just repeat one last time. Stop the stupid finger pointing and fight the argument not the person.

You really are a socialist. I say this not as an insult, but simply because of the policies you'd like to see implemented.

[CanadianJeff]

Almost everyone who has been exposed to second-hand pot smoke in any significant quantity has also smoked pot. In fact, there is a term called "hotboxing" in which two or more people smoke pot in a small, unventilated area, like a car, for the sole purpose of inhaling second-hand smoke. If a person willfully exposes himself to smoke, and neither the smoke nor the source thereof poses any short-term danger, what right does the government have to outlaw it?

Mainly second hand smoke damage and the effect of these things on very young children. Both kind of undocumented factors at this point. Most noteably as well is the effects of Pot during pergnancy. Many doctors go out of their way to go through lists of what a woman should not consume during pregnancy. Coffee, cigartes, beer, Pot etc.

And just so you know you don't have to try and dumb down something as simple as hotboxing. I've done that and much worse trust me. Hot kniving for example. Or Vaporizers and bongs etc. You don't have to dumb it down. Trust me I've done the stuff pretty hard in my day. Most memorably we built a bong out of a fish tank with the fish still in the tank. Man when fish get high....

anyway.

[Blue_Nose]

CanadianJeff wrote:

And just so you know you don't have to try and dumb down something as simple as hotboxing. I've done that and much worse trust me. Hot kniving for example. Or Vaporizers and bongs etc. You don't have to dumb it down. Trust me I've done the stuff pretty hard in my day. Most memorably we built a bong out of a fish tank with the fish still in the tank. Man when fish get high....

You made the personal decision to try it, and when it turned out to be a negative experience for you, you stopped using it - why can't you imagine giving everyone else the same personal responsibility for their decisions?

[EmperorLiam]

ComradeJeff: "I just love how rather then address the point"

EXCUSE ME? What did I not address that I was supposed to? There are no loose ends.



"Almost everyone who has been exposed to second-hand pot smoke in any significant quantity has also smoked pot."

Almost everyone who has eaten Cap'n Crunch has tried Coco Puffs.



"And one thing that sadly is true regardless is that somking pot increases ones risk of cancer. Most noteably lung cancers. This is due to the fact that many of the same chemicals in cigartes are in pot. "

Hey marx, go back and read my posts, I already refuted this.



"Most noteably as well is the effects of Pot during pergnancy."

Uh... what? Women smoke pot during pregnancy a lot, as in specifically smoking pot for pregnancy. I already said so, 'no flipper babies.'

I'm sorry, but I expect higher caliber of debate, with people that actually do research and are trying to come to the best informed position possible. I have no interest in dealing with idealistic commie youth. Self responsibility is like the plague to them, they flee it.

[CanadianJeff]

frankly Liam all you do is throw insults and try and give half baked points like becuase someone has done A they have done B with A and B not having any relation.

Then you tack on some comment at the end everytime to insult the poster.

First It's communist then its accusing a person of having no self responsibility. etc etc. That's why I really can't take you so seriously. You treat this place like it's the internet. I guarantee if you met me face to face we would be having a far more professional dialouge.

Frankly if it's over the internet I would rather not deal with flamers. Kjorteo asked you to stop constructing your arguments the way you have been. Maybe you should take the hint.

[Les-R]

Kjorteo wrote:

To the people who keep claiming to grow as an act of civil disobedience: Don't forget that in a trial by jury, the juries can vote to acquit the defendant on the grounds that the law is unjust or unconstitutional. This is known as jury nullification and is, I imagine, a very important part of the process of overturning a law through civil disobedience and trials.

Actually last time I was called to Jury Duty in the US we were all told it wasn't our place as jurors to put the law itself on-trial and we were instructed to judge the merits of the case itself based on the laws as-written, reguardless of any thoughts as to the validity of said law.

[Kjorteo]

Well yeah, they say that, but it's not actually true. They're basically trying to take advantage of the fact that most people aren't aware that they have the power to judge the law by bullying and excusing the ones who actually do and lying to the rest. There are organizations out there that try to combat this, of course.

[Murray_Smith]

CanadianJeff wrote:

Mainly second hand smoke damage and the effect of these things on very young children. Both kind of undocumented factors at this point. Most noteably as well is the effects of Pot during pergnancy. Many doctors go out of their way to go through lists of what a woman should not consume during pregnancy. Coffee, cigartes, beer, Pot etc.

Notice that it's not technically illegal for a pregnant woman to consume coffee, cigarettes, and alcohol.

Quote:

And just so you know you don't have to try and dumb down something as simple as hotboxing.

I was defining the term for anyone who wasn't familiar with it.

Quote:

I've done that and much worse trust me. Hot kniving for example.

I'm not familiar with that.

Quote:

Or Vaporizers and bongs etc.

Want to try the former, occasionally do the latter.

Quote:

You don't have to dumb it down. Trust me I've done the stuff pretty hard in my day. Most memorably we built a bong out of a fish tank with the fish still in the tank. Man when fish get high....

anyway.

Doing calculus while high is one of the most entertaining things ever.

EmporerLiam wrote:

"Almost everyone who has been exposed to second-hand pot smoke in any significant quantity has also smoked pot."

Almost everyone who has eaten Cap'n Crunch has tried Coco Puffs.

That is neither analogous not relevant, and you know it. Additionally, that's my quote, not Jeff's.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but I expect higher caliber of debate, with people that actually do research and are trying to come to the best informed position possible.

You reap what you sow.

Quote:

I have no interest in dealing with idealistic commie youth. Self responsibility is like the plague to them, they flee it.

Why don't you stop being such a Young Republican and argue seriously. At least Jeff is, even if his views are misguided.

[CanadianJeff]

accually I'm more emotionally blinded on the issue by past experiences if you want to get into the nitty gritty but hey.

Anyway to clarify and I don't recommend doing this hot kniving is simply put heating two knives on a stove then taking a small nugget that you pick up with the end of one hot knife then press the other hot knive on top of the nugget and pushing down. The result is a ton of smoke going strait up into the air.

Normally at this point someone grabs a funnel or a sawed off pop bottle puts their mouth on the small end and starts to suck in all the smoke.

It's nasty nasty stuff for your lungs. Which is why i wouldn't reocmmend it. Go with a bong or vapuorizer.

Accually if we were going to legalize pot that's one thing the government should invest in is selling cheap vapourizers. No reason people can't smoke the stuff much more cleanly.

edit:

"You made the personal decision to try it, and when it turned out to be a negative experience for you, you stopped using it - why can't you imagine giving everyone else the same personal responsibility for their decisions?"


Becuase even home grown and clean Pot becomes a mentally adictive drug. If you go without your not going to have convulsions or anything else but you get cravings. Especially if your a heavy smoker. Just like tabbaco. Some people are going to be more susceptable then others. I'm not saying people are uncapable of controlling themselves I'm saying we know some are not. that's why I would be more in favor with having a doctor monitor as they do now people's intake of pot when they are recommended the substance for treatment. It is a mentally adictive substance.

[Murray_Smith]

CanadianJeff wrote:

accually I'm more emotionally blinded on the issue by past experiences if you want to get into the nitty gritty but hey.

Anyway to clarify and I don't recommend doing this hot kniving is simply put heating two knives on a stove then taking a small nugget that you pick up with the end of one hot knife then press the other hot knive on top of the nugget and pushing down. The result is a ton of smoke going strait up into the air.

Normally at this point someone grabs a funnel or a sawed off pop bottle puts their mouth on the small end and starts to suck in all the smoke.

That is, IMO, an idiotic method to smoke pot. Super-inefficient, requires more than one person, exceedingly dangerous, even if you're using butter knives.

Quote:

It's nasty nasty stuff for your lungs. Which is why i wouldn't reocmmend it. Go with a bong or vapuorizer.

Accually if we were going to legalize pot that's one thing the government should invest in is selling cheap vapourizers. No reason people can't smoke the stuff much more cleanly.

Interesting argument. At the very least, they could endorse vaporizers.

Quote:

edit:

"You made the personal decision to try it, and when it turned out to be a negative experience for you, you stopped using it - why can't you imagine giving everyone else the same personal responsibility for their decisions?"


Becuase even home grown and clean Pot becomes a mentally adictive drug. If you go without your not going to have convulsions or anything else but you get cravings. Especially if your a heavy smoker. Just like tabbaco.

Actually, the only symptom I have ever experienced was anorexia.

Quote:

Some people are going to be more susceptable then others. I'm not saying people are uncapable of controlling themselves I'm saying we know some are not. that's why I would be more in favor with having a doctor monitor as they do now people's intake of pot when they are recommended the substance for treatment. It is a mentally adictive substance.

I actually have an addictive personality. I was addicted to video games when I was ten. No, I'm not exaggerating. I don't think anyone's pot intake really needs to be monitored by anyone except maybe an accountant. I personally think Amsterdam's system is a good one.

[EmperorLiam]

CitizenJeff: "throw insults"

Um, no. Calling someone a communist is no more insulting than calling them a unitarian, socialist, capitalist, etc. Did you consider, maybe you are perceiving insults that are simply not there?


"accusing a person of having no self responsibility"

I accused 'commie youth'... I'm not aware of your age and there is no way of me to determine your personal self responsibility over the internet.

This thread is about a seed dealer getting 5 years, and not for example the militia leader of the janjaweed in Darfur region being promoted into the government of Sudan. I'm not even slightly emotional about this, this is small potatoes.


"I guarantee if you met me face to face we would be having a far more professional dialouge. "

Depends on the topic, or if were high or drunk, or if were both immortal highlanders.

I reserve the right to call out communist rhetoric, whether you personally beleive it strongly or not. You think I'm trying to insult you? You should see what I say to tards that beleive 9/11 was an inside job.

I'd give you 5 minutes to say everything you want to, then decide if its even worth talking to you. I've actually done that more than I can remember. I'm an Albertan, so I'm used to being outnumbered by conservatives.

In the end, there can only be one.




Murray_Smith:
"You reap what you sow."

I actually put a fair bit of effort into my posts; capitalization, spelling, sources, etc. I don't think I have any influence on the quality of others posts, that would be silly wishful thinking facing into a hurricane of utter retardation that is the the average internet denizen.

I'm Canadian actually, even our Conservatives are more liberal than Republicans. I'm a libertarian, you know... uber-liberal social values, and but for small government and market capitalism, if you weren't aware. Although I suppose at one time Republicans were that way, but they sure aren't currently.


[EDIT] I already said this, but it bears repeating, the cartoon was very well done. I think since JJ is so familiar with royalty/military garb, he can naturally draw that well. Someone should actually make Emery those robes and crown, it'd be funny.

[Murray_Smith]

EmperorLiam wrote:

CitizenJeff: "throw insults"

Um, no. Calling someone a communist is no more insulting than calling them a unitarian, socialist, capitalist, etc. Did you consider, maybe you are perceiving insults that are simply not there?

You presented a clear dislike of communists, then proceeded to call Jeff one. Any reasonable person would view that as an insult.

Quote:

"accusing a person of having no self responsibility"

I accused 'commie youth'... I'm not aware of your age and there is no way of me to determine your personal self responsibility over the internet.

You implied that Jeff was part of the commie youth you so detest.

Quote:

This thread is about a seed dealer getting 5 years, and not for example the militia leader of the janjaweed in Darfur region being promoted into the government of Sudan. I'm not even slightly emotional about this, this is small potatoes.

And yet you post in this topic, as opposed to creating a new one about a subject you feel more passionate about.

Quote:

I reserve the right to call out communist rhetoric, whether you personally beleive it strongly or not. You think I'm trying to insult you? You should see what I say to tards that beleive 9/11 was an inside job.

The only thing you've really done in this thread was blindly insult Jeff, to the point where you balked at a comment that was made by me. Jeff wasn't necessarily throwing out communist rhetoric. He very well could have thought up those ideas on his own.

Quote:

I'd give you 5 minutes to say everything you want to, then decide if its even worth talking to you. I've actually done that more than I can remember. I'm an Albertan, so I'm used to being outnumbered by conservatives.

Quote:

Murray_Smith:
"You reap what you sow."

I actually put a fair bit of effort into my posts; capitalization, spelling, sources, etc. I don't think I have any influence on the quality of others posts, that would be silly wishful thinking facing into a hurricane of utter retardation that is the the average internet denizen.

Jeff doesn't have the best of spelling, but he presents his arguments clearly, and states reasons for his beliefs. I'm arguing with him because I think his views, while well-meaning, are impractical. While I do appreciate the fact that you pay attention to the quality of your posts, viciously attacking Jeff's views distracts from any message you're attempting to get across.

[CanadianJeff]

Could you clarify on Amsterdam's system?