[2Cdo]

Curtman Curtman:

You're a prohibitionist aren't you? You believe that marijuana prohibition keeps us safe somehow right?

Never once said that. I just don't think legalizing will be the wonderful cure all you believe in.

$1:

You were just saying how someone who is legally allowed to possess marijuana should be arrested for possessing marijuana. That's the bit of perverted logic that comes from your type.

Once again with the "your type", very narrow minded for a progressive like yourself. Fine, no charge for possession just criminal trespass.

[Curtman]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Curtman Curtman:

You're a prohibitionist aren't you? You believe that marijuana prohibition keeps us safe somehow right?

Never once said that. I just don't think legalizing will be the wonderful cure all you believe in.

OK. There may be a few people still trying to justify the expense of prohibition, I thought you were one of them.

2Cdo 2Cdo:

$1:

You were just saying how someone who is legally allowed to possess marijuana should be arrested for possessing marijuana. That's the bit of perverted logic that comes from your type.

Once again with the "your type", very narrow minded for a progressive like yourself. Fine, no charge for possession just criminal trespass.

The legality of sit-ins has been tested over and over in many different civil rights issues. During this protest over 30 MP's offices were occupied by marijuana activists, not one charge of trespass or possession occurred.

Are you for or against the regulation of marijuana? Do you believe a half a billion dollars is a worthy expenditure to achieve whatever results the war on marijuana is claimed to have achieve?

[andyt]

Why ask him reasonable questions? He's just out to fight with the straw man he's created out of your argument (legalization is a panacea). Amazing how many people are on this forum who say they're not against legalization, but spend all their time arguing against it while never engaging with the howlers that OTI comes up with. (At least OTI is willing to take a position, even if he's also big on defeating straw men).

[2Cdo]

andyt andyt:

A bunch of sweet fuck all.

Good to see you run to add nothing but personal shots. Go get me a double-double.

Curtman Curtman:

Are you for or against the regulation of marijuana? Do you believe a half a billion dollars is a worthy expenditure to achieve whatever results the war on marijuana is claimed to have achieve?

Personally I think they should legalize it, and when crime doesn't drop one bit from the drug trade laugh at those who proclaim drug crime will disappear.

[Jabberwalker]

As soon as the Government gets involved in the drug trade, it's profitibility will drop right off, anyway.

[Curtman]

andyt andyt:

(At least OTI is willing to take a position, even if he's also big on defeating straw men).

Oh there's no harm in OTI.. He's just defensive.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e14431942/

$1:

The leader of Canada’s Liberal Party has apologized to used car salesmen (and women), who have had it up to here after decades of being the go-to comparison for the world’s slime.

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Personally I think they should legalize it

Good for you. Strange that someone would argue against something they support though isn't it?

[Thanos]

It's called neutrality. Either way it'll make zero difference in my life. I could care less if they legalized or not. Like 2Cdo said, I also think all these so-called benefits that will supposedly occur if it's legalized are mostly a crock.

[Public_Domain]

Makes a bit of difference in my life.

I'm starting to wonder whether or not I want it legal. I mean, if they don't allow people to grow at home, it's barely better than when it was illegal.

[Curtman]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Makes a bit of difference in my life.

I'm starting to wonder whether or not I want it legal. I mean, if they don't allow people to grow at home, it's barely better than when it was illegal.

Who said anything about what the regulations would be? You've changed your mind based on your own speculation now?

I don't imagine these arguments with yourself are very productive.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Makes a bit of difference in my life.

I'm starting to wonder whether or not I want it legal. I mean, if they don't allow people to grow at home, it's barely better than when it was illegal.

Who said anything about what the regulations would be? You've changed your mind based on your own speculation now?

I don't imagine these arguments with yourself are very productive.

Ah, so it's not OK for others to make up things as they go along but you can?

[Curtman]

Marc Emery on the Mississauga Free Marc Protest March

$1:

I would like to thank members of the Mississauga South NDP riding association for putting on a march and rally Sunday (September 29, 2013) calling on the Conservative government of Stephen Harper to immediately approve my repatriation back to Canada and into the Canadian corrections system for the remainder of my sentence.

I think it's very important that any supporters who attend do NOT smoke marijuana at this rally and march. I think we need to be cognizant that the hosts are an association of the official opposition in Parliament, and I request all my supporters to honour the rules set down by the rally organizers. It is not a legalization rally. It is not a smoke-out. It is an action designed to get favourable media coverage for my transfer request and to make a point to the Conservative government of Canada. The local objective to be achieved is to get local Conservative MP Stella Ambler to present this opinion to the Public Safety Minister, Mr. Blaney.

I believe the media coverage and political response would be more favourable if the visuals for this rally and march were not blurred by pot smoking. Since this event is only a few hours, I believe my supporters should restrict themselves to smoking before the rally/march, and afterward, away from media, but certainly not during the event hosted by members of the Mississauga South NDP association.

If you feel you must smoke in that time during the event, my personal preference would be that you not attend this rally, as I do not want the Conservative MP or the government or the media using pot smoking at the event to become in any way a theme derived from the behaviour of my supporters. The entire emphasis should be on the very important single fact that an association of the official opposition of the Canadian government is holding this event to insist on my return to Canada.

I really appreciate everyone's help in making this rally/march a focused one and hope that my understandable and reasonable request will be honoured at this event.

Marc Emery 40252086,
Yazoo Federal Prison,
Yazoo City, Mississippi

[Lemmy]

Thanos Thanos:

It's called neutrality. Either way it'll make zero difference in my life. I could care less if they legalized or not. Like 2Cdo said, I also think all these so-called benefits that will supposedly occur if it's legalized are mostly a crock.

It would absolutely benefit you to not tag criminal records on, nor populate your prisons, with recreational drug users. It would absolutely benefit you to take money away from criminal gangs. It would absolutely benefit you to reduce the police, Crown, court and corrections resources wasted on drug users. You might not notice those benefits, but that could be easily solved.

[Thanos]

I'm fairly certain that I've consistently said around here that users shouldn't be jailed. Only traffickers, large-op growers & dealers, and smugglers should be. I'd be content with users getting simple fines and wouldn't even have anything against them being them let off altogether, at least in the case of pot. Users of other things like crack, coke, heroin, or meth are in a different category though, where some kind of punishment is needed due to the massive amount of death and destruction that accompany these kinds of drugs. If you want to pick a fight here then surf through my 10000-odd posts and prove that I've said otherwise.

[Lemmy]

Not picking anything but my ass, mate. But you specifically stated that legalization would be of no benefit to you. You were not speaking of enforcement effort nor trafficking in your last post. I agree, focus should be maintained (no, heightened) on traffickers, including traffickers in less-harmful drugs like pot. On the other hand, there's been some recent research that concludes that the damage associated with coke, heroin, crack and meth may be vastly over-estimated. I'm eager to read Dr. Carl Hart's High Price, which I haven't yet, though I've seen him speak several times. I'm becoming less convinced that criminalizing even hard drug users ought to be policy (even having first learned of this Krokodil shit just this week). But I'm with you on the traffickers.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Not picking anything but my ass, mate. But you specifically stated that legalization would be of no benefit to you. You were not speaking of enforcement effort nor trafficking in your last post. I agree, focus should be maintained (no, heightened) on traffickers, including traffickers in less-harmful drugs like pot. On the other hand, there's been some recent research that concludes that the damage associated with coke, heroin, crack and meth may be vastly over-estimated. I'm eager to read Dr. Carl Hart's High Price, which I haven't yet, though I've seen him speak several times. I'm becoming less convinced that criminalizing even hard drug users ought to be policy (even having first learned of this Krokodil shit just this week). But I'm with you on the traffickers.

Criminalizing anybody for using a drug, no matter what, is of no help whatsoever. Provide adequate treatment resources for them, including drug maintenance, if that's the best option for a person. Jailing somebody for doing other crimes to support a habit is another matter.

Traffickers of all drugs would still be jailed under legalization and regulation. We jail bootleggers and cig smugglers now, assuming we've bothered to go after them. But legalization provides a drug stream that has no traffickers, with their obscene profits and violence.

For pot, regs should look like they do for alcohol - compare the amount of illegally produced alcohol vs the legit stuff, including people legally making their own beer and wine. For harder drugs, regs would look different - you wouldn't be able to just walk in your liquor store and buy heroin. Crystal meth, not sure there should be a legal source for it - but then there already is. The military is big on methedrine I understand. All kinds of legal uppers.