To have reason is not enought, and only to to left it is kind of the heroism of some of the smokers.

Because people have different reasons for not smoking it... the fact that it's illegal being only one of them.

I think you got it all twisted...
I have NO reason to smoke it, why would I make up reasons?

Having no reason to smoke it is a reason to not smoke it.

There is an "other" option... or were you too stoned to see it?

This country legalized booze years ago and they should have no reason not to legalize pot...

Pot is less harmful than alcohol in every way.

In 2007 the BC pot industry was worth 4 billion per season.... Lets tally up the rest of Canada and see what the pot industry is worth...

I get antsy when the topic of weed and crime come up. Before I get started though, could I ask where you got your stats about the cost decrease, Ryan? I've never seen claims about such a large decrease before in the context of Canada. I wish I knew a lot more on this topic than I do.

People are quite right when they say the stuff isn't cocaine, and that's why I don't think it'll wipe out or drastically reduce crime like a lot of other people mentioned, nor is it as effective as a source of income for gangs in the first place in my mind. There are certainly a lot of other cases where crime has been driven by drugs of various kinds, but in those cases they were dealing with much harder drugs. Not to mention that gangs have to compete with a lot of growers with more benign intentions in mind, so gangs do have to have a bit of a different strategy in Canada than elsewhere -- especially since it's already rather plentiful here.

From what I remember, recent gang related violence in Canada has more to due with the cocaine trade than it had to do with the marajuana trade, especially since the recent Mexico issues have begun disrupting trade lines. Are gangs really making all that money of weed anyways? That always seemed like a weak spot with me, more argued about than really supported either way, pro or con, from anything I read, and I'm really curious to know where they actually get their funding from. This isn't the case of Afghan warlords with opium or the Southern States cocaine struggle, this seems like a different case when it comes down to weed for me. It has a much more diverse, less gang-entangled culture in Canada, especially compared to other, harder drugs.

I mean, if we were really looking at taxing this stuff and stopping a form of income in the hands of the gangs, we'd have to wonder how high we could tax before they would just undercut if it really was a good source of income. But I don't think it's a good, reliable source of income for them. How many pot users would buy their stuff from a gang member, especially since most people can get it from a friendlier source in Canada? By all means, tax away, though, if it is legalized. Same as cigarettes.

I also dislike how often the "pot growers" in each scenario changes. In one hand, it's a bunch of people in a gang using it to make money, and in the other hand, it's just a bunch of people who want to use it for personal use who have been making it. It can't be both, and that's for both the pro and con folks in this debate. The nebulous existence of these men and women who do pot is so confusing to follow at times.

For the record, another thread we recently had discussed the gateway effect. Generally, modern literature from biological, psychological and economic journals indicates that the existence of a gateway effect cannot be definitively supported or refuted with modern evidence. It's not possible to pin it on weed, but it's not really possible to say it flat out doesn't exist either. I know Zipperfish and Choban both are more adamant than me about the lack of existence in the gateway effect, which kind of contrasts what Thanos said, but there were also concerns with how politicized the field was when it comes down to finding a point in the morrass of information on the topic. Honestly, most people likely know more on this stuff and the ongoing debate than I do.

I remember being a bit concerned about the fact that studies show that often times cannabis is used in relation to other (complementary) goods, like alcohol. Weed has it's own set of problems, sure, but I'm not sure I'd be too impressed if alcohol became a more prevelant problem in Canada because of an increase in weed sales (much like how smokers have to stop drinking coffee in many cases when they want to quit, because the goods are complementary for many smokers). I'm not for a radical change in our current policy, but a slower change where the folks are made aware of the risks before entirely shifting it into gear for legalization is something I'd not throw my body in front of. If we want to legalize something, than we need to legalize it right, in my mind, and that means making sure we know the risks and the benefits. I think both end up being overstated or downplayed in this case far too often. I certainly am clueless on the topic personally.

To be honest, you guys can add me to the list of folks who don't actually care much though, and to be honest, folks should take to heart that people just don't care enough to make it an issue. One of the reasons you don't see a change in policy for this is because there is a lack of mandate given to our politicans from our voters for this to happen, either in the way of further criminalization or decriminalization. I'd not be surprised if this has been a causal factor in the failure of the weed changes to get off the ground for the past fifty or so years.

Khar, if we were sitting across from each other having a beer, I think I would have no problems liking you, but damn it man, you need to keep your comments shorter.

I dont enjoy having my discussions transform into lectures, and i dont enjoy having the forums transformed into an short story reading club.

Not according to this survey...
I had to come up with a reason why. "Just because" was not an option. "Because it's illegal" (that I don't give a shit about, if it was legal, I wouldn't smoke it either) is...

Why?
You don't have to read it...

I actually like to read his stuff, but find myself skipping past anything beyond 100 words