Legalising Marijuana in Canada

[SkyPanda]

Some think the only recourse is to lock poor John up in prison. It sounds to me like John has a medical problem called addiction. You can have this medical problem with alcohol, gambling, pornography, or video games. Why are we trying to diagnose a medical problem with a legal remedy? It seems to me that we should diagnose John's medical problem with a trip to a doctor or therapist.

Nobody is trying to diagnose a medical problem with a legal remedy, blue_tetris. :s
The legal side is to either prevent or permit the factors that caused the addiction.

It's possible to stop a transaction from either angle, by stopping the buyer or the seller. If I have 250 mg of cocaine on me, there's an insanely small chance I'm going to be selling it. In fact, there's very little I can do with this baggie. It's nearly impossible for me to commit any violent crimes using this stuff as a weapon, any better than I could use boiling water or a fist. I am breaking the law by having it. I am a non-violent criminal for having no influence on anyone and tempering my decisions as best I can.

I'm not sure I see a point in that paragraph. Can you possibly rephrase?

[blue_tetris]

Some think the only recourse is to lock poor John up in prison. It sounds to me like John has a medical problem called addiction. You can have this medical problem with alcohol, gambling, pornography, or video games. Why are we trying to diagnose a medical problem with a legal remedy? It seems to me that we should diagnose John's medical problem with a trip to a doctor or therapist.

Nobody is trying to diagnose a medical problem with a legal remedy, blue_tetris. :s
The legal side is to either prevent or permit the factors that caused the addiction.

People are arrested every day for carrying drugs which are intended only for personal usage, to fuel their addiction. These people have a problem that they need help with, but they don't intend to sell product to anyone.

The second paragraph is there to describe how a person who uses drugs is seen as a criminal, just a "non-violent" one. Some kind of criminal who commits a crime without any victim. These people might have a mental problem but I don't think that putting them in a jail is going to fix that.

[SkyPanda]

People are arrested every day for carrying drugs which are intended only for personal usage, to fuel their addiction. These people have a problem that they need help with, but they don't intend to sell product to anyone.

That's certainly true, but i'm not certain that you're actually replying to something I've said, so why quote me. Unless you were just using my example and weren't actually agreeing or disagreeing with me or anything.

The second paragraph is there to describe how a person who uses drugs is seen as a criminal, just a "non-violent" one. Some kind of criminal who commits a crime without any victim. These people might have a mental problem but I don't think that putting them in a jail is going to fix that.

Crimes definately do not require violence. As for the victim, isn't it the same justification used to arrest drink drivers? No accident or death may have actually occured, but the potential for a victim exists?
Not to mention that if the government wants people to not do something, making it illegal is one method. Where does a victim need to come into it?
Furthermore, if you like, the 'victims' can be the people negatively effected by either drug manufacture, distributing, selling or consumption.

Again, not certain that you're actually replying to something I've said. You started off by saying "Its possible to stop a transaction" but then went off at a tangent and didn't explain how you would go about stopping such transactions.

[Lachesis]

I think that legalizing controlled substances is actually a good idea in general. Why?
A) We can't afford to keep prosecuting people in the US for drug-related offenses. (Although I'm not sure, I assume Canada has similar budget concerns)
B) Making it legal would reduce the appeal to certain target groups
C) Making it legal would enable government regulation and manufacturing standards, which would heavily reduce the tainted/impure/fake samples that are responsible for a great deal of deaths
D) Making it legal would permit social services to more heavily target it as an addiction requiring assistance
E) Although this isn't a good reason for legalizing anything, there is a clear imbalance in what we consider illegal substances. Alcohol is known to be a great deal more dangerous and costly to deal with than marijuana.

Amen brotha!

[TribulatioN]

Crimes definately do not require violence. As for the victim, isn't it the same justification used to arrest drink drivers? No accident or death may have actually occured, but the potential for a victim exists?
Not to mention that if the government wants people to not do something, making it illegal is one method. Where does a victim need to come into it?
Furthermore, if you like, the 'victims' can be the people negatively effected by either drug manufacture, distributing, selling or consumption.

I'm quite sure what b_t was trying to get across was different than what' you're trying to say. Since drunk driving has the chance of accident involving innocent people, even though they were just fueling their addiction by drinking shots, doing drugs is quite different, there's no chance of accident involving innocent people whatsoever, it's just a man breaking the law, due to his addiction. The only possible victim here is that he gets mugged or killed from the people of the source of his drugs (dealers, gangs, etc). So it's essentially free of innocent accidents, versus drunk driving full of it.

Sure, he who chooses to feed his addiction will eventually harm himself one way or another, but then again, you can't say anything different for alcoholics.

[bobaganuesh_2]

Yes, legalising pot is what's important. Not the economy or solving world hunger. Good priorities, Canada.

I think Canada is in the black, economically.

As for world hunger, I don't think we can put off things until Africa isn't hungry anymore. We've been using that line since 19-dickety-2.

were all in the goddam black. Except Iran.

Legalizing drugs is like giving chocolate to a dog.

[Zora_S_Kenneth]

Yes, legalising pot is what's important. Not the economy or solving world hunger. Good priorities, Canada.

I think Canada is in the black, economically.

As for world hunger, I don't think we can put off things until Africa isn't hungry anymore. We've been using that line since 19-dickety-2.

were all in the goddam black. Except Iran.

Legalizing drugs is like giving chocolate to a dog.

God never dammingly dammed any damned dammed blackness. I don't think.

Legalizing drugs is like giving laxatives (aka Drugs in Medicine) to a sick rhinoceros (aka Medical Population). It may help the rhino, but if a guy (aka Some Teenagers) comes along and super glues himself using a large dosage of cyanoacrylate to the rhino's behind (aka Agitates Rhino), then he's done for under 30 gallons of rhino diarrhea (aka Bad Reputation and sometimes Court Hearings). As long as guy doesn't irritate the rhino (aka Abuse Drugs Meant for Medicinal Purposes), then nobody will ruin their tuxedos (aka Flashy Reputation) and nobody will make the rhino suffer by removing the easier to remove cause of the accident (aka The Laxatives (aka Drugs in Medicine)).

Any drugs outside of this aren't a good idea. Although, I must say, nothing like a little booze to settle economy. Just wait until a high spike in the economy, then provide everyone on Wall Street with free beer. All trading stops, things remain well, yeah!

[scythe]

Yes, legalising pot is what's important. Not the economy or solving world hunger. Good priorities, Canada.

I think Canada is in the black, economically.

As for world hunger, I don't think we can put off things until Africa isn't hungry anymore. We've been using that line since 19-dickety-2.

were all in the goddam black. Except Iran.

Legalizing drugs is like giving chocolate to a dog.

Uh, no, the United States is over nine trillion dollars in the red.
Also, the Netherlands has yet to fall apart due to marijuana.

[blue_tetris]

Again, not certain that you're actually replying to something I've said. You started off by saying "Its possible to stop a transaction" but then went off at a tangent and didn't explain how you would go about stopping such transactions.

I don't argue people, I argue points. I probably quoted something you said and then went on to editorialize more than just a response to you.

Anyhow, read between the lines. I said something like "You can stop the buyer or the seller to prevent the transaction" and spoke in support of the buyer and how he isn't hurting anyone else with what he's doing. I meant to imply that a proper first step would be to just catch sellers, those who possess a significantly high amount of the product with an intent to sell it. It would certainly save a lot of money. California's branch of the DEA saved a few billion dollars of taxpayer money since they decriminalized the possession of marijuana for personal use.

I'm sure officers outside of the DEA are also glad they can put more focus back on violent crimes instead of on catching people who intend to use marijuana personally.

[SkyPanda]

I don't argue people, I argue points. I probably quoted something you said and then went on to editorialize more than just a response to you.

Anyhow, read between the lines.

I shall endeavour to decipher your posts as best I can, but in general if you don't mind me asking, I'd prefer only to be quoted if you're intending to respond in some way to something i've said, surely that will result in less confusion for me and probably for others too :)

[blue_tetris]

I've always quoted stuff like this. I quote someone and I respond to something they said, then I paragraph down and say my own thing. I don't think a debate is an interminably regressive chain of rebuttals to rebuttals. I think it requires new material now and then.

Anyhow, I'mma keep on posting like I do. It's not like this is my first debate topic.

[Kablizzy]

I shall endeavour to decipher your posts as best I can, but in general if you don't mind me asking, I'd prefer only to be quoted if you're intending to respond in some way to something i've said, surely that will result in less confusion for me and probably for others too :)

To be quite honest, I don't see how the polar ice caps would ever melt. We've been through an Ice Age, people. It was fuggin' cold back then. Unless the sun goes supernova, I don't think we'll ever see the water levels rise to significant levels to affect us.

[origami_alligator]

1. The government should not be allowed to govern a person solely effecting their own lives. This means that if I want to go drop a bunch of acid in my back alleyway for myself, then I'm going to, and the government shouldn't have any say on my actions.

2. The government should protect persons from persons. This means that if I start doing a lot of acid and I suddenly find myself broke because of it, the government should have the right to protect other people from me should I harm them or steal any of their property because of my want.

3. The government should protect the freedom of choice in the privacy of your own property. Whether it's homosexual sex, drug addiction, suicide or other things which are done in the privacy of your own property, the government should not fine you or put you in jail or fine your family from an action which you have undertaken, AS LONG AS IT SOLELY EFFECTS YOU and other consenting members on the property.

Furthermore, I have something to say about the drugs which pose a greater threat to your body over a shorter period of time, like methamphetamine. In Oregon and specifically the Portland-Metro area, we had a HUGE meth increase in the early 2000's. I don't know exactly what sparked it but over the course of one year (during at least a 5 year period) Portland police managed to find and eradicate 183 methamphetamine labs. What was done with the cooks? They were sent to prison. Of course, if you have 183 meth labs busted in a year and you send all of those involved to prison then you have 1 or more people going to prison per meth lab.
And what about the users? Well, meth is an expensive habit. The effects of meth don't last long unless you are taking regularly over the course of a couple days. If you were an addict I would imagine that taking meth to keep the high would be something you would want to do. But because of the expensive habit, Portland saw an amazing increase in theft. And when pawn shops were beginning to be immediately notified of anything expensive coming through, meth addicts started to steal metal to sell at scrapyards. It didn't bring in as much as jewelry but then again, you couldn't sell jewelry as easily anymore.
Then as the metal fad started to get going people were reporting missing metallic objects all the time. I'm sure that my parents were victims of metal scrapping by meth addicts. We woke up one day to some scrawny looking dudes stealing my stepdad's metal trailer. I have no doubt in my mind that it was because of meth, as this was around the desperate times for meth addicts.
Anyway, as meth addicts started to steal public and private property they too were arrested. But with the cooks in jail already and a number of meth heads in jail already as well, prisons started to become full. There was a report on Channel 8 News about prisons being extremely overcrowded and some meth addicts only being held overnight because of it. I hated that.

So for the legalization of drugs? Well, I guess it's up to someone else. Because cooking meth is a dangerous thing, you can explode your house by doing it. The fumes are deadly to little children and babies, and in more than a few meth houses they busted did they find children and babies. Cocaine isn't a pretty thing to mix up either, as it involves gasoline in its mixture.
Marijuana to me sounds like a fine thing to legalize, for medicinal and personal use. If you legalize it, and create a market out of it, then you're eliminating the grower/seller, unless the price for marijuana from a market is higher than the price on the street. Oregon will face this issue on the 2010 ballot I believe. It would be regulated by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) and be sold in places that serve alcohol, meaning if you're not 21 you won't be able to purchase pot. If we vote this year to ban smoking within bars then the "I might get high from all the people smoking pot" argument won't really hold.
I don't think that hard drugs should be sold as something you can just buy in large quantities if you wanted to, though. If heroin were legal I would rather it be regulated by a health clinic. Someone wanting to experience what heroin is like would be able to get some heroin from the health clinic and their name would be put in a system and they wouldn't be able to purchase another thingymabob of heroin for X amount of days, to ensure that either a habit doesn't start, or abuse, or selling it off to get someone who wants heroin faster than their X days happens as easily.
Drugs are a freedom of choice, and though I think the government shouldn't be allowed to protect us from our own decisions, government should be allowed to have regulations. Sudafed, which contains pseudoephedrine, a common ingredient in allergy medicines, is now regulated as to how often you can buy it in Portland, as meth cooks want the pseudoephedrine for their meth. You can still buy it, just now it is regulated to prevent meth from being produced as easily within the City of Portland. This is fine to me. It's doing something to prevent not only the cooking of meth but to prevent massive theft as well.

Massive post... I hope I didn't contradict myself anywhere... I guess I just had a lot to say on the issue. For Canada legalizing something as pot for personal use I say fine. It's not worth the time for government to try and remove all the marijuana that isn't for medicinal use. Besides, what's more harmful to society - the guy who sits around on his couch and smokes weed? or the guy who runs around town stealing things so he can inject himself later?

[blue_tetris]

Because of the Canadian government's strong stance on privacy rights, marijuana has essentially been legal (or at least unprosecutable) for years.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

1. The government should not be allowed to govern a person solely effecting their own lives.

So far as I understand it, the government does not claim power over any self-causing entities.

This means that if I want to go drop a bunch of acid in my back alleyway for myself, then I'm going to, and the government shouldn't have any say on my actions.

Following from the previous problem, I agree. Provided you're God, no one has the right to tell you what to do.

2. The government should protect persons from persons. This means that if I start doing a lot of acid and I suddenly find myself broke because of it, the government should have the right to protect other people from me should I harm them or steal any of their property because of my want.

I think persons should defend themselves from persons, and that the government should intervene when a catastrophic failure mode results.

3. The government should protect the freedom of choice in the privacy of your own property.

Well, technically, the house you live in is probably not even yours. The bank probably owns your home.

Whether it's homosexual sex, drug addiction, suicide or other things which are done in the privacy of your own property, the government should not fine you or put you in jail or fine your family from an action which you have undertaken, AS LONG AS IT SOLELY EFFECTS YOU and other consenting members on the property.

I was right with you up until you said that only the things that create, cause, or artifice me am I free to do without it being the government's business.

*sigh* Looks like we disagree yet again, SkyPanda.

[SkyPanda]

I've always quoted stuff like this. I quote someone and I respond to something they said, then I paragraph down and say my own thing. I don't think a debate is an interminably regressive chain of rebuttals to rebuttals. I think it requires new material now and then.

Anyhow, I'mma keep on posting like I do. It's not like this is my first debate topic.

oh..ok..i guess.. its all for the best..i just hoped.. *wipes away a tear*.. i was just trying to help.. help... coherent discussion.. *sniff* ;__________;

Tsukatu, i'm not southpaw. :P

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Tsukatu, i'm not southpaw. :P

I've gotta start writing down your names or something.

[SkyPanda]

3. The government should protect the freedom of choice in the privacy of your own property. Whether it's homosexual sex, drug addiction, suicide or other things which are done in the privacy of your own property, the government should not fine you or put you in jail or fine your family from an action which you have undertaken, AS LONG AS IT SOLELY EFFECTS YOU and other consenting members on the property.

Okay, but in order to acquire drugs to consume in your own home, those drugs need to be legal, and I think one of the key issues to this thread is that legalising drugs will have effects on individuals, communities, the economy, crime, blah, blah, blah.

Also, I'm trying and failing to think of an example of something that in order to do it in your own home, the government needs to take a stance on it (eg make it legal) and that the government taking a stance on it will have a major effect on the society/community, not just the individual.
I'm sure there must be alot of things, but nothing comes to mind right now.

I've gotta start writing down your names or something.

I'm the sexy one.

[blue_tetris]

Okay, but in order to acquire drugs to consume in your own home, those drugs need to be legal, and I think one of the key issues to this thread is that legalising drugs will have effects on individuals, communities, the economy, crime, blah, blah, blah.

Drugs can't be illegal. Actions are illegal. It's all good and well to say "drugs should be illegal". But we can't throw drugs in jail. We throw people in jail.

Legalizing the use of drugs just means that drug-users won't go into prisons and will instead go into clinics to get help for their addictions. Legalizing the sale of drugs could mean that people who shouldn't have drugs are getting marketed drugs that they otherwise would not use.

You can see how one is more desirable than the other?



Also, to cut off this rebuttal at the pass, legalizing marijuana does not lead to greater consumption of marijuana. When marijuana was decriminalized in California, of all places, the state actually saw less usage of marijuana--usage continued to steadily decline even as the legality of the substance changed. Turns out that most people weren't afraid to use marijuana, regardless of the laws associated with it. The laws weren't curbing behavior, which should be the intent of any law. When decriminalization occured, instead of having more marijuana-smokers, California just ended up with more money.

Instead of spending this money on feeding and monitoring non-violent criminals they had locked up, they probably spent some of it on rehabilitation programs and social programs.

[SkyPanda]

Drugs can't be illegal. Actions are illegal. It's all good and well to say "drugs should be illegal". But we can't throw drugs in jail. We throw people in jail.

translation: "When you mentioned legality, were you referring to possession, distribution or both?"
I was referring to possession.

[blue_tetris]

What's so illegal about possessing something? I possess lots of dangerous things which I could use to hurt myself or others. Knives I could stab with, "do not eat" silica gel I could eat, television sets I could throw at people. I don't think I've broken any laws if I don't use those things for those purposes.

[SkyPanda]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_possession

I seriously doubt that you do not understand the concept of drug possession, blue_tetris. So again I have to try and deduce what point you are making, if any.

Perhaps the point you are trying to make is that we should question WHY drug possession is illegal?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

What's so illegal about possessing something? I possess lots of dangerous things which I could use to hurt myself or others. Knives I could stab with, "do not eat" silica gel I could eat, television sets I could throw at people. I don't think I've broken any laws if I don't use those things for those purposes.

Sure, but some objects have so few or no primary purposes other than to cause harm. I mean, you can say you're only taking your heroin to the firing range, but let's be honest here, you have it around so you can shoot up, harming yourself and potentially other people in the vicinity. And keeping it around where other people, or even children, can get a hold of it just seems like a bad idea on all fronts.

[blue_tetris]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_possession

I seriously doubt that you do not understand the concept of drug possession, blue_tetris. So again I have to try and deduce what point you are making, if any.

Perhaps the point you are trying to make is that we should question WHY drug possession is illegal?

Dude. What the fuck. I understand that possessing drugs is illegal in lots of places. I was being rhetorical, by saying something along the lines of "What's so unlawful about possession?"

Why are you making it a point to misinterpret me?

Convince me why you think possessing (but neither using nor selling) drugs should be illegal. I'm not saying it's impossible that it should be illegal. I'm trying to stimulate conversation, in any way whatsoever now, and you default to stuff that's already been said or forcing a re-explanation of things. It's frustrating. Does anyone else see this happening? Because it's frustrating the hell out of me.

Jesus Christ.

Jesus fucking Christ.

This is what you were talking about, Suki. I am coming to agree wholeheartedly.

[SkyPanda]

Why are you making it a point to misinterpret me? I'm trying to stimulate conversation, in any way whatsoever now, and you default to stuff that's already been said or forcing a re-explanation of things. It's frustrating.

I hate offending people, but I really don't want to take that, sorry.

I honestly had no idea what you were trying to do! You made a post that was quite possibly a reply to mine. I could not be sure of this, but I went ahead and assumed that it was, because we seemed to be having a discussion about posession. Your post was kinda ambigious and open to multiple interpretations. Were you asking for information about the laws related to drug possession? Were you questioning why possession is illegal? Therefore I asked you to clarify what your intended point, or focus for discussion, was, if there was indeed any focus. To emphasise: I asked you to clarify your post. I was not trying deliberately trying to misinterpret you, I was not defaulting to stuff that already been said- how is asking you to clarify your newest post defaulting to whats already been said?. To cut off your likely rebuttal, I did not even ask you to clarify it in terms of 'stuff that's already been said'. Or perhaps you though my post was in a rude tone, it was not intended to be.

Obviously we're frustrating each other with the way we conduct our discussion and debate, to the detriment of the thread. Its 1 for 1 as far as insults are concerned, so can I convince you to settle this in a different way than with pistols at ten paces, please? :) However, I can't stop you if you want to go ahead and make your final "you are wrong and an idiot" post, and you're the mod and all.

To slightly negate the massive personal post, I ironically completely agree with you that the target should be the seller, not the buyer.