Canada finally putting forward marijuana decriminalization legislation next week

I only want decriminalization. It is currently just as illegal to grow tobacco as it is weed. You have to be all government approved and wahtnot. And look what the tobacco smokers have to deal with: poisonous chemically adulterated crap. Even the ones that say they're not using all the fucked up additives are prepackaged and left to sit on a shelf for god knows how long. The reason I moved to Seattle is because we have the best weed on the planet, bar-none. I do NOT want the government to be able to regulate the growing of weed. Government control can only compromise true quality and that's fucked. I'll be goddamned straight to hell before I'll go buy some fucking Marbolo Greens with a government tax stamp on them.

This is a very delicate issue for me. I don't want to get in trouble for it, but I want to actually get high when I inhale one hit of smoke(or vapor more often than not in my own case). A compromise in quality for legality will simply NOT do. One day of jail in 16 years of smoking definitely makes the quality seem worth the risk.

Pa

Yay, just what Canada needs. More fucking pot heads.

Governments should have no power to tell people what they can and cannot put into their own bodies. It should be a basic human right to poison yourself however you may choose as long as you are not harming anyone else. It's sick that such a basic freedom has been denied for so long.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
Governments should have no power to tell people what they can and cannot put into their own bodies. It should be a basic human right to poison yourself however you may choose as long as you are not harming anyone else. It's sick that such a basic freedom has been denied for so long.

---

This is a nice idea, Neo, but what about the cost of treating the addicts? If we give people the right to poison themselves with as much heroin as they want, then what do we do when we've got crowds of heroin addicts riddling the street? Let them die? Spend loads of money trying to turn them back into productive citizens again?

Giving people the right to poison themselves however they may choose makes us decide what responsibility we have to those people once they become filthy, useless drug addicts. Hard drug addicts become a drain on the state, whether we choose to treat them, jail them, or simply try to alleviate the effects of whatever crimes they commit. We're all in this together, basically, so saying "it should be a basic human right to poison yourself however you may choose as long as you are not harming anyone else" is a bit simple - it's easy to overlook the multitude of ways a drug addict can subtly hurt others while taking advantage of his freedom. I'm pro-reasonable-drug-legalization, but it's not that easy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
If we give people the right to poison themselves with as much heroin as they want, then what do we do when we've got crowds of heroin addicts riddling the street? Let them die?

---

Fuckin' right.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by diffusionx
I happen to think the shit's bad for you, but not so bad that it should be illegal.

---

My sentiments exactly. *resumes pulling tubes*

Hello?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
How much of the Democratic party would vote for decriminalization?

---

Depends what state they're in, I suppose. Nevada and California, they're all for it. Missouri Democrats probably wouldn't be so accomodating.

Quote:

---

'The Nation' is against the War on Drugs, but so is 'National Review'. The neo-conservative thrust of this administration puts the US a lot closer to decriminalization now than it was under Clinton. Given that marijuana doesn't kill anyone, legalization of it is more a right-wing issue than the left. Free-market policy would lead to legalization too, since prices would drop. I'd guess that within 10 years it'll be legal, and it's at least as likely a Republican will approve the bill as it is a Democrat. At some point the amount of taxes on marijuana sales will become a much larger issue than whether it'll be legalized at all.

---

I would agree if I didn't see the Republicans becoming more and more the party of the protestant Christian; it's obvious that for many people this is as much a spiritual/doctrinal issue as it is societal. Time ran a good cover story back in november which dealt in part with the massive roadblocks hospitals and universities face in obtaining marijuana for legtimate research from the current administration. Which is to say, they can't.

As long as the driving force of the party remains in its current form, I don't see decriminalization ever happening under a Republican government.

Quote:

---

The sad thing is, soon the Government will basically become the US's dealer, given how high the taxes on weed will probably be.

http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

---

The government is already the US' dealer for tobacco and alcohol, two things which are actually addictive and pose a greater health risk.

Quote:

---

Actually, I'm pretty sure Clinton spent significantly more on the War on Drugs in his 8 years than was spent in twelve years of Reagan and Bush (including inflation).

---

This may well be true, although I'd be very interested to see how that was calculated - I don't recall any "interdictions" during Clinton's reign. Don't get me wrong, I feel it's the current political climate in the US which is determining its drug policy, not one party necessarily being more progressive than another. It isn't fair to compare Canada to the US in this regard due to a number of factors.

Mainly: the facts that religious lobbies are almost nonexistent in this country outside of 2 or 3 provinces, and that it's much easier to reach a consensus when you have a population 1/9th the size of the US' which is primarily concentrated between Toronto and Montreal.

But still, given the current US administration's hardline stance, a vote for Bush is definitely a vote to maintain the status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StriderKyo
Anybody who votes republican, remember you are supporting things like this. Dubya's a huge proponent of the w.o.d.

---

I know more dems than reps that support the War on Drugs.

Quote:

---

Putting it in perspective for the non-weed smokers, a half bottle of vodka would have gotten him twice as mangled as what he had, no matter how good it was. These laws have completely lost perspective.

---

But if I drink half a bottle of vodka sitting next to someone, I'm not going to get them drunk. And one or two shots are not going to get me completely screwed up whereas one or two joints will.

In my opinion, use them responsibly and in the confines of your own home but not in public.

Quote:

---

The government is already the US' dealer for tobacco and alcohol, two things which are actually addictive and pose a greater health risk.

---

I understand cigarettes, but how does alchohol pose a bigger threat to health? It's actually good to have a glass of wine frequently.

As for pot not being addictive... whatever. We wouldn't need programs to get people off of it if it weren't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
I know more dems than reps that support the War on Drugs.

---

Well, I don't know that the people you know are an accurate sample. My original point was that Bush is a huge proponent of the w.o.d., so a vote for him is definitely a vote for its continuance. Nevada's governor has tried to push for decriminalization in that state, but the drug czar quashed it.

Quote:

---

But if I drink half a bottle of vodka sitting next to someone, I'm not going to get them drunk.

---

Unless you're both in a closet, I defy you to get stoned off someone else's joint without taking a drag.

Quote:

---

And one or two shots are not going to get me completely screwed up whereas one or two joints will.

---

You're comparing disproportionate amounts of intoxicant - that's like me saying 3 or 4 drags of an average joint is not as powerful as 5 or 6 shots.

But if your point is that with weed there's no real middle ground - you're either sober or stoned, you're right. But people know that going in, just like nobody downs a 6-pack if they have something important to do (well, most people, anyway).

The main difference is that no matter how much weed you smoke in a night, you can't actually harm yourself - the worst that can happen is you fall asleep (and that takes a ton). If I down a bottle of vodka quickly enough, I could kill myself. Believe me, liquor gets you far more "screwed up" than pot can. The two buzzes aren't even comparable. You're still perfectly capable of rational thought while stoned, but while drunk you'll do the stupidest things imaginable.

Quote:

---

In my opinion, use them responsibly and in the confines of your own home but not in public.

---

That's perfectly fine by me - it's not legal up here to walk down the street with an open bottle of alcohol, I don't think anyone wants people walking up and down main street with blunt in hand. It's still not going to be legal so it's a moot argument anyway, but even if it were I imagine it would be confined to private property and specially designated bars/clubs.

Quote:

---

I understand cigarettes, but how does alchohol pose a bigger threat to health? It's actually good to have a glass of wine frequently.

---

There have been studies showing positive benefits from mild THC intake as well. But compare a long time alcoholic to a long time heavy pot smoker, and see the difference in damage done. Aside from that, compare yourself after a night of heavy drinking to the day after smoking up.

Quote:

---

As for pot not being addictive... whatever. We wouldn't need programs to get people off of it if it weren't.

---

You don't. There is no physical addiction to marijuana. I smoked constantly for two months one summer, then just stopped without even realizing it. Had I done the same with alcohol, cocaine, heroin, cigarettes, crack, etc. there would have been withdrawal symptoms.

People who are addicted to weed are addicted of their own accord, because they don't feel capable of handling life without it. But those feelings would be there with or without the drug. All they're doing is self-medicating, and weed's their pill of choice.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StriderKyo
Well, I don't know that the people you know are an accurate sample. My original point was that Bush is a huge proponent of the w.o.d., so a vote for him is definitely a vote for its continuance. Nevada's governor has tried to push for decriminalization in that state, but the drug czar quashed it.

---

Just remember, a vote for Clinton was a vote for its continuance. A vote for Gore was a vote for its continuance as well. (Ahah, in this case maybe "Don't Blame Me! I voted for Nader!" makes sense)

Quote:

---

Unless you're both in a closet, I defy you to get stoned off someone else's joint without taking a drag.

---

The power of the hot-box.

Quote:

---

The main difference is that no matter how much weed you smoke in a night, you can't actually harm yourself - the worst that can happen is you fall asleep (and that takes a ton). If I down a bottle of vodka quickly enough, I could kill myself. Believe me, liquor gets you far more "screwed up" than pot can. The two buzzes aren't even comparable. You're still perfectly capable of rational thought while stoned, but while drunk you'll do the stupidest things imaginable.

---

Pot can definitely fuck up people's lives, but, no, you're right, it's nowhere near as dangerous as alcohol.