Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 10  Next

I agree PA9. Celine Dion is way more of a hazard to our culture than weed!

   

I think the status quo is about as good as any of the solutions to this issue. If we legalize it, we run a risk of legitimizing some real scumbags. If we get tougher on the consumer, we wont achieve anything but heartache.

   

Wrong-o. I haven't smoked pot in years. Simply outgrew it, to tell you the truth. However, I still support legalization because, in my opinion, things that do not pose a significant societal risk should not be illegal. For me, it's a freedom issue. Marijuana is probably the most studied drug in history. We know that the risks of it are minor and overwhelmingly individual risks, as opposed to social risks. So I don't support giving the government the power to prohbit it on arbitrary grounds.

Those who oppose legalization are generally your nanny state types who think that everything that isn't prohibited should be mandatory, and the puritans, who simply see recreational drug use of any type as a sin. Legalization would present trade difficulties with the US, so I can see that as a logical grounds for supporting continued criminalization to some extent, but I still don't agree with it.

Also if "Non pot users don't really give a flying f*ck whether it is legal or not" then pot would be legal. Non-pot users would not oppose legalization (since, as you say, they don't care) and pot users would support legalization. With no opposition, pot would be legalized. Bad argument.

   

And I would argue that your conflating marijuana use with other drugs is a condemnation of the prohibition argument. Marijuana is a different animal altogether than almost any of the other drugs out there, legal or illegal.

The criminalization crowd, in a desperate attempt to portray pot as a serious risk to society will gladly lump it in with crystal meth, heroin or crack. They think this adds strength to their argument, but it doesn't. It detracts. Most people in Canada have tried pot. They know--experientially know--that pot isn't crystal meth. And then they know they are being played by people that are lying to them.

Oh, I'm sure you can drag up "scientific" studies showing that pot is actually worse than the Black Death and users will grow breasts and then explodes. adn if no one knew any better, you might even be able to get away with that. But they do know better. They're thihking--"Hmmm, I got into Pink Floyd for an hour, my mouth was dry and then I got really hungry. I don't recall raping grandmothers to get my next fix."

   

She's the modern version of a BOMARC. All should fear Canada's delving into the international proliferation of overpaid, low talent, fingernails on the chalkboard screeching Divas!

   

I am not even arguing. I don't care whether it is legal or not. Just like I don't care that alcohol is legal. The moment it affects my life tho, by others, I do care. Like people driving drunk, breaking into my house drunk, driving high, selling or dealing near schools or to my kids.

What strikes me as odd tho, is that a legal substance like tobacco and alcohol is restricted in the way it is sold, but fast food is not. All are legal, all are bad for your health in the long run when overused.

   

By arguing for legalization of marijuana or alcohol, I'm in no way condoning people driving drunk or driving high. As for fast food, you're starting to see a lot more government activity in that area--banning pop machines from schools, forcing fast food chains to offer "healthy" alternatives (in San Fran, I believe), etc.

   

To think our school kids may be exposed to her poison.......illegal copying shops distributing her vile CD's....

This is the real threat to our society!

   

The illegal copying and distribution is the product of a clever CSIS program to spread her hideous screeching to all and sundry so that Canadians alone do not have to suffer the monster they created from their passive hubris.

   

   

Marijuana, in spite of what some nuts will say, does have some good medical uses.
It is a very good treatment for many types of glaucoma and for people in chronic
pain it does give them a lot of relief.

The fact that it would undercut drug lords profits would be a nice side bonus.

Cocaine, Meth, ect are MUCH more harmful and that is where I would draw the line.

   

Prohibition of all narcotics has been a huge waste of time and effort. We need to stop thinking like it's the 1920's as it's not ever worked.

We should try something else, anything but sticking to a failed plot.

   

Come now, she's not that bad...

...she's worse.

Strangely enough, when she sings in French, it's not the same as in English.
In English, she adjusts her style to the American way of singing, and why not, that's where the money's coming from.

In French, it's different, but she can still cry on cue.

   

Drugs do all kinds of damage. But they also do good. Self medicating with booze or pot does help some people to cope, as long as they can keep it under control. It's not a perfect solution, but if we stopped the use of all recreational drugs, there would probably be negative effects, as well as positive ones. And it's social, sharing a joint, standing around outside freezing to hack a butt or having a drink together. Those are positives, and I don't think most of us are evolved enough to do without them. (well, I am, but I don't know about youse guys).

One theory I read holds that agriculture was invented not to supply food - they had easy living in the fertile crescent - but to have a steady supply of grain to make beer. And they've found pot seeds in 30,000 year old digs. So wanting to get shit faced is just part of being human.

   

As with anything else, as long as there are consumers, someone will find a way to produce/import/harvest it and sell it to them.

Only thing you can do, like alcohol and cigarettes, legalize it, tax it and educate everybody on how bad it is to use it.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 10  Next