Off Topic

Marijuana legislation coming next spring: feds

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 21st, 2017 12:01 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
Apr 5, 2013
2799 posts
616 upvotes
markham
LOL a bunch of non pot smokers arguing for and against..and those that have never grown before talking about it...

truth is ..i grew a dozen plants in my backyard about 15 years ago in Mississauga..from clones..plants grew to about 6 ft by september..started budding on their own in late august...simple, water every other day..a bit of miracle grow early when they were young..a bit of flowering fertilizer in late july...buds (big buds...big huge buds lol) in late august (once daylight goes to about 12 hours or less) ..leave in till almost frost in October....great harvest , about 4 to 6oz per plant...probably could have doubled easily if i didn't have to hide the plants locations....no brain surgery just normal gardening.
Deal Addict
Aug 25, 2010
3823 posts
558 upvotes
Archanfel wrote:
Apr 20th, 2017 8:13 am
I am sure there are far more efficient way of getting nicotine in your system too, but most people smoke it because it's easy and it's the behavior not the chemical that attract people. How many people do you know use vape pens to smoke nicotine, which is doable and as you say, efficient (in killing yourself). If you can think straight and really care about efficiency, you wouldn't be smoking that stuff in the first place. I have never seen anybody claiming weed is 100% harmless, only that it's less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, which is not saying much.

It does make a good policy question though. Would the government only legalize vape pens, but still ban smoking the stuff? I doubt it since they are doing this to buy votes, not as a sensible public policy.
I'm not sure why you bring up a (deeply flawed) comparison with cigarettes and also health. They sound like red herrings to me. But anyway, the nicotine addiction has been tied to the act of smoking (historically, in ads, tv, movies, etc...) forever. But despite the 70's and some "stoner" movies, weed users are not married to one specific way of consuming weed, and contrary to your statement, it's the chemical(s) they seek (THC, CBD) and not the behaviour. Sure you still have some "old school" dudes who stick to joints and bongs, but a lot of people I know vape, including those I buy from. Plus, there's concentrates (oil, wax, shatter), edibles, THC pills, and even suppositories (for medical patients). And since there's a cost attached to it, I don't see why a user woudn't want to have his gram of weed last 4-5 times longer by vaping.

Seriously, for those who don't know much about weed, your city isn't going to turn into Cheech and Chong land with clouds of weed smoke constantly hovering overhead. ;)
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
5662 posts
220 upvotes
JustBob wrote:
Apr 22nd, 2017 7:31 am
I'm not sure why you bring up a (deeply flawed) comparison with cigarettes and also health. They sound like red herrings to me. But anyway, the nicotine addiction has been tied to the act of smoking (historically, in ads, tv, movies, etc...) forever. But despite the 70's and some "stoner" movies, weed users are not married to one specific way of consuming weed, and contrary to your statement, it's the chemical(s) they seek (THC, CBD) and not the behaviour. Sure you still have some "old school" dudes who stick to joints and bongs, but a lot of people I know vape, including those I buy from. Plus, there's concentrates (oil, wax, shatter), edibles, THC pills, and even suppositories (for medical patients). And since there's a cost attached to it, I don't see why a user woudn't want to have his gram of weed last 4-5 times longer by vaping.

Seriously, for those who don't know much about weed, your city isn't going to turn into Cheech and Chong land with clouds of weed smoke constantly hovering overhead. ;)
No but the powers that be would like to convince you that it will so they can keep weed and hemp down!
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2679 posts
80 upvotes
Toronto
The government should only act towards progressing society and security. I fail to see how this marijuana waste of time contributes anything of substance to the nation.

As much as i loathe it and as evil as i percieve it, at least social justice comes from a real desire to make positive change. Wtf does legalizing pot do?
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 19, 2001
29009 posts
975 upvotes
Fernando Po
Remember how the Feds got Al Capone not by charging him with murder or bootlegging but using the tax law? This is the same thing. This isn't legalization at all, it criminalization in another guise. Given that their cannabis blood test if driving would make anyone who uses cannabis regularly a criminal facing prison people are going to have to choose either to use pot or drive. I hope both of these new acts are shot down.
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” -HL Mencken
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 5, 2016
2083 posts
101 upvotes
silky28 wrote:
Apr 22nd, 2017 8:19 am
The government should only act towards progressing society and security. I fail to see how this marijuana waste of time contributes anything of substance to the nation.

As much as i loathe it and as evil as i percieve it, at least social justice comes from a real desire to make positive change. Wtf does legalizing pot do?
It'll help the rabid social justice folks to not take themselves too seriously. Win-win for everyone.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Jul 4, 2015
787 posts
177 upvotes
Anyone who is super against Legislation should spend 5 minutes talking to someone who couldn't sleep/eat/feel comfort from whatever disease/illness until they had medical marijuana enter their lives.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 19, 2001
29009 posts
975 upvotes
Fernando Po
TagYoureIt wrote:
Apr 22nd, 2017 11:27 pm
Anyone who is super against Legislation should spend 5 minutes talking to someone who couldn't sleep/eat/feel comfort from whatever disease/illness until they had medical marijuana enter their lives.
I have a prescription for insomnia. Worked well at first not quite as well lately. Certainly opposed to what the Liberals are trying to pass off as legalization for reasons stated above.
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” -HL Mencken
Deal Fanatic
Apr 8, 2013
7014 posts
219 upvotes
hagbard wrote:
Apr 23rd, 2017 9:49 am
I have a prescription for insomnia. Worked well at first not quite as well lately. Certainly opposed to what the Liberals are trying to pass off as legalization for reasons stated above.
You are not the only person that lives on earth. What doesnt work for you, works for millions of people.

Conservatives really have no respect. Liberals are doing something amazing here and they will still find ways to trash them.

This isnt healthy.
Diversity Is Our Strength 😎
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jul 22, 2006
20772 posts
1972 upvotes
Growing up just changed fundamentally.. First times now include alcohol and weed
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 16, 2006
5865 posts
322 upvotes
hagbard wrote:
Apr 22nd, 2017 9:18 am
Remember how the Feds got Al Capone not by charging him with murder or bootlegging but using the tax law? This is the same thing. This isn't legalization at all, it criminalization in another guise. Given that their cannabis blood test if driving would make anyone who uses cannabis regularly a criminal facing prison people are going to have to choose either to use pot or drive. I hope both of these new acts are shot down.
The Feds in the US pursued Al Capone for criminal tax evasion because that was all they could legitimately prove against him. They didn't have enough evidence to prosecute him for the other charges you mentioned. Gangsters don't pay their fair share of taxes for various reasons, not the least of which is (1) if they're going to break the law to earn illegal money, they may as well further break the law by not reporting it as taxable income and (2) not to tip the government off about how much money they are earning with no legitimately explainable source of income.

As for your claim that this is "criminalization in another guise", it has been illegal to operate a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs for quite some time. The issue with the criminal offence as currently worded is that the Crown has to prove that the person is impaired to drive by the drug(s) in question. This is the federal government's solution to what was a very-old problem that existed some 60+ years ago for alcohol, being the stand-alone offence of impaired driving. If you're a seasoned alcoholic and down 750ml of vodka before driving and your driving has no issues and you have no issues with balance/coordination, etc, the offence of impaired driving is not likely to be proven in those circumstances. That was why the offence of "Over 80" was enacted many (very many) years ago; even if your ability to drive does not appear to be impaired by alcohol, you should not be behind the wheel of a vehicle if your blood alcohol content exceeds 80mg / 100 ml of alcohol. This number was chosen following scientific consultation. It is entirely possible someone at or exceeding this blood alcohol content is nonetheless "fine" to drive in fact, however, society (through Parliament) has deemed it criminal and unacceptable for someone to drive with this much alcohol in their system, regardless of how drunk of sober they actually are. They're trying to do the same thing with THC (marijuana) in this case.

The federal government could have simply amended the criminal code to include the new criminal offence of THC in blood while driving without also legislating to legalize marijuana. Instead, they did both.

Of course, the big difference between the alcohol over-limit and would-be marijuana over-limit criminal offences are significantly. Alcohol usually gets worked through the body anywhere from a few hours to a day at the most, so your blood alcohol content 24 hours after you stop driving should be at or close to 0. THC can stick around in people's system for weeks after marijuana is consumed.
silky28 wrote:
Apr 22nd, 2017 8:19 am
The government should only act towards progressing society and security. I fail to see how this marijuana waste of time contributes anything of substance to the nation.

As much as i loathe it and as evil as i percieve it, at least social justice comes from a real desire to make positive change. Wtf does legalizing pot do?
Legalizing pot removes the criminal underground organization's financial motive to continue with that operation, meaning more tax revenue for the state (you like lower taxes, don't you?), better and safer quality control for the drug, and stringent requirements for who can and cannot buy it. Furthermore, it is also a far less damaging drug than alcohol.

You don't like marijuana? Don't smoke it.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 19, 2001
29009 posts
975 upvotes
Fernando Po
You'd better go have another look at what they (the Liberals) are proposing. Yeah, THC stays in your system for weeks, and the levels they're suggesting makes any medical user subject to criminal charges for amounts that wouldn't cause any impairment. They should be doing roadside cognitive testing for any form of impairment if they're really worried. People on cannabis don't scare me anymore than people taking many over-the-counter drugs, prescriptions and impairment due to age. People like myself are going to have to choose between using cannabis as a treatment or driving. This is all fought out in the courts the govt will eventually be defeated.
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” -HL Mencken
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 11, 2008
4679 posts
333 upvotes
JustBob wrote:
Apr 22nd, 2017 7:31 am
I'm not sure why you bring up a (deeply flawed) comparison with cigarettes and also health. They sound like red herrings to me. But anyway, the nicotine addiction has been tied to the act of smoking (historically, in ads, tv, movies, etc...) forever. But despite the 70's and some "stoner" movies, weed users are not married to one specific way of consuming weed, and contrary to your statement, it's the chemical(s) they seek (THC, CBD) and not the behaviour. Sure you still have some "old school" dudes who stick to joints and bongs, but a lot of people I know vape, including those I buy from. Plus, there's concentrates (oil, wax, shatter), edibles, THC pills, and even suppositories (for medical patients). And since there's a cost attached to it, I don't see why a user woudn't want to have his gram of weed last 4-5 times longer by vaping.

Seriously, for those who don't know much about weed, your city isn't going to turn into Cheech and Chong land with clouds of weed smoke constantly hovering overhead. ;)
The problem with weed is that you don't need a clouds of weed smoke constantly hovering overhead to be able to smell it. It smells a lot worse than cigarettes (according to a maclean's article, it measured 5000 EOU with cigarettes measuring 30). I am all for people having the freedom to kill themselves however they choose. However, I don't have to smell somebody else's cheeseburger, most of the time.

Therefore, if the law is about freedom, then the law should say that you can smoke pots (or anything for that matter) all your want, however, you would be fined a huge amount if anybody else can smell it. I am not sure pot users would be happy about it.
Last edited by Archanfel on Apr 24th, 2017 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Fanatic
Apr 8, 2013
7014 posts
219 upvotes
Archanfel wrote:
Apr 24th, 2017 2:09 pm
The problem with weed is that you don't need a clouds of weed smoke constantly hovering overhead to be able to smell it. It smells a lot worse than cigarettes (a star article said thousands of times more so). I am all for people having the freedom to kill themselves however they choose. However, I don't have to smell somebody else's cheeseburger, most of the time.

Therefore, if the law is about freedom, then the law should say that you can smoke pots (or anything for that matter) all your want, however, you would be fined a huge amount if anybody else can smell it. I am not sure pot users would be happy about it.
You are comparing cigarettes(proven to kill millions of people) VS marijuana(proven to help people in pain and used as a medicinal product).

You cant demonize weed anymore. Its not going to work. People's eyes are open.
Diversity Is Our Strength 😎
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 11, 2008
4679 posts
333 upvotes
kevindurant1 wrote:
Apr 24th, 2017 2:18 pm
You are comparing cigarettes(proven to kill millions of people) VS marijuana(proven to help people in pain and used as a medicinal product).

You cant demonize weed anymore. Its not going to work. People's eyes are open.
Who cares? I didn't say it kills people, I would be fine with it, I said it smells when smoked.

I don't care whether it helps people in pain. Advil doesn't smell.

I wouldn't have a problem with making heroine legal even if it kills billions of people, as long as it does not smell. People should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not impact others. Of course, in that case, I also would like drug users to be charged a higher health premium rather than basing it on income. However, if it does impact others, then it's up to the user to remove such impact or pay for it.

Top

Thread Information

There are currently 2 users viewing this thread. (1 member and 1 guest)

kenze