Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Why Marijuana should be Legalized


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
300 replies to this topic

#91 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,218 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 08 August 2012 - 11:59 PM

Government should regulate and tax it.
We are already known for our BC Bud, might as well profit from it.

Jagermeister.jpg


#92 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 09 August 2012 - 12:47 AM

PFFFT. I got news for you, bub...even if someone does "overuse" marijuana...they still aren't going to jump behind the wheel of a car and go kill someone recklessly...you "overuse" pot...and your ass is going to pass out on the couch, but only after you've eaten everything in the pantry. :lol:


Like how we don't drink and drive?
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#93 Kesler_smash

Kesler_smash

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 09 August 2012 - 12:53 AM

I have smoked regularly for parts of my life and not smoked at all for others. There is really no good argument for marijuana remaining illegal. If you smoke it and don't like the feeling or find it effects your memory then don't smoke it...its as simple as that. You don't like the smell?? I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke or of people who don't bathe for days and don't use deodorant. I am with the guy who advocated that all drugs should be legal. If you are a person who abuses heroin, meth, cigarettes, alcohol or any other substance you will continue to do so regardless of legality. The "war on drugs" is just a huge drain on the taxpayers dollar when a small percentage of that money could be used to improve rehabilitation programs and other social services to help people who are truly addicted.

#94 SEAN HARNETT

SEAN HARNETT

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 05

Posted 09 August 2012 - 01:00 AM

PFFFT. I got news for you, bub...even if someone does "overuse" marijuana...they still aren't going to jump behind the wheel of a car and go kill someone recklessly...you "overuse" pot...and your ass is going to pass out on the couch, but only after you've eaten everything in the pantry. :lol:


LMAO so true :lol:
:towel:

#95 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 09 August 2012 - 08:27 AM

Like how we don't drink and drive?


Look...be dense on your own time...I know people who have drank too much and got behind the wheel, one of them killed my cousin..but I don't know ANYONE, who after smoking copious amounts of pot, even wanted to go outside, much less have an inkling of wanting to get behind the wheel....I know some who get a small buzz then go and raid the Taco Bell...but your post was about "overuse", which with pot is just about impossible to do without passing out....plus...no one's ever had to go to the hospital to be treated for THC poisoning.
Posted Image

#96 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 09 August 2012 - 08:58 AM

Look...be dense on your own time...I know people who have drank too much and got behind the wheel, one of them killed my cousin..but I don't know ANYONE, who after smoking copious amounts of pot, even wanted to go outside, much less have an inkling of wanting to get behind the wheel....I know some who get a small buzz then go and raid the Taco Bell...but your post was about "overuse", which with pot is just about impossible to do without passing out....plus...no one's ever had to go to the hospital to be treated for THC poisoning.


Is it foreseeable that a person would smoke more pot than he/she intended? y/n?
Is it foreseeable for a person to smoke pot before or during a high risk activity? y/n?
Is it foreseeable for our culture to use pot excessively? y/n

I don't think doing anything out of moderation is good for anyone, and it seems like pot is another area where people can serious lose control.
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#97 The Brahma Bull

The Brahma Bull

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,224 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 08

Posted 09 August 2012 - 09:01 AM

I hate the smell of it, but legalizing it is the only way to go. The War on Drugs by the USA is a huge embarrassment that costs way too much money and has solved nothing. Legalize it and these drug dealers/gangs are out of a job.

Edited by The Brahma Bull, 09 August 2012 - 09:03 AM.



#98 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 09 August 2012 - 09:09 AM

Is it foreseeable that a person would smoke more pot than he/she intended? y/n?
Is it foreseeable for a person to smoke pot before or during a high risk activity? y/n?
Is it foreseeable for our culture to use pot excessively? y/n

I don't think doing anything out of moderation is good for anyone, and it seems like pot is another area where people can serious lose control.


First question, no. Most people I know at least, that toke....usually know their limits...not to mention the fact that usually when you buy pot you buy enough for your own usage unless you're having a party, so that's irrelevant. Second question, no. As I have said, and driving is one of the highest risk activities you can do, at all...no one I know will get worse than just a little buzzed from a joint before going to a fast food drive-thru, and that's about the extent...do I know people who have smoked pot before sitting through a movie at the theater? Yes, I have done that myself, but that's hardly a high-risk activity. As far as your third question...there are cultures whose religion is based around cannabis smoking...they are Rastafaris...and guess what? When they smoke their herb for "spiritual" purposes, it's often accompanied by Bible study. They consider it a sacrament that cleans the body and mind, heals the soul, exalts the consciousness, facilitates peacefulness, brings pleasure, and brings them closer to Jah (their version of God)...yet it remains illegal in Jamaica, where most of them live. You, being such a "righteous" person...would you condemn THEIR "culture" for using pot excessively, if they claim it gives them insight from Jah and thereby brings them closer to spiritual bliss?

Edited by Slaytanic Wehrmacht, 09 August 2012 - 09:10 AM.

Posted Image

#99 TimberWolf

TimberWolf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,870 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 04

Posted 09 August 2012 - 09:11 AM

Agreed but cheesburgers and alcohol are so many times worse for you than herb . This is the rationale we are all forced to deal with from our governments and their social policies.


It's not a good argument, though. Pointing out what is worse could just as easily be making a case for making those substances illegal as well. Tell the benefits of use and if it can't stand on it's own, then it cannot. The alcohol argument is akin to a politician telling you how bad the other guy is and that's why you should vote for him.

I also don't buy the crime prevention argument. If that were the case, why don't you fight to legalize and not get stoned till you win? We are dealing with a nonaddictive substance here, so it shouldn't be a problem. If not, then you really have no problem supporting crime for your hobby in the first place.

That all said, I believe the silly hobby is harmless enough for adults to be legal. Except where children are involved. The penalties for helping children get high should be the same as the trafficking laws now. Also the laws that keep cigarette smoke away from people should apply and driving under influence.

I was saying Lu-Urns...

star-wars-hockey-goal.gif?w=284

#100 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 09 August 2012 - 09:23 AM

That all said, I believe the silly hobby is harmless enough for adults to be legal. Except where children are involved. The penalties for helping children get high should be the same as the trafficking laws now. Also the laws that keep cigarette smoke away from people should apply and driving under influence.


Agree with this part of that post, but I actually think the penalty for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" in regards to pot should be as stiff as allowing underage kids to drink at a party if you get caught doing it. And the whole "second-hand smoke" bs you referenced is little more than a myth...as a cigarette smoker for 16 years now, at least here in the US, I have seen smokers' rights dwindle to the point where we're not even allowed to smoke in bars anymore, and in some places around not even on the sidewalk...if you ask me, that's getting really out of hand, but that's a topic for another thread. In my experience...the only people who have ever been charged with driving under the influence of pot are those who have been pulled over for a normal traffic violation, and then some overzealous cop searches their glove compartment with no probable cause. The effects of pot are not the same as alcohol, in the least, and no one I know, even with a buzz, swerves all over the road or at all, to the point that there is a concern they are endangering the lives of others.
Posted Image

#101 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 09 August 2012 - 09:25 AM

Humans have been using cannabis for thousands of years, but now it will somehow destroy our society and eat our children.

Not a single rational argument for keeping pot illegal in the whole thread. Then again, the US government's rationale was laughed at and debunked the same way.

https://petitions.wh...fforts/hvcsS8pC




White House response to NORML’s “We the People” marijuana legalization petition
  • by Russ Belville, NORML Outreach CoordinatorOctober 29, 2011

The Obama White House has released its official response to the “We the People” online petition for marijuana legalization submitted by NORML. The petition, which garnered 74,169 signatures, was by far the most popular petition submitted. The government response (released late on a Friday to avoid news cycles, we’ll note) repeats the same tired lies and classic misdirections. Most of all, it fails to answer NORML’s actual petition, which asked:


Legalize and Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar to Alcohol.

We the people want to know when we can have our “perfectly legitimate” discussion on marijuana legalization. Marijuana prohibition has resulted in the arrest of over 20 million Americans since 1965, countless lives ruined and hundreds of billions of tax dollars squandered and yet this policy has still failed to achieve its stated goals of lowering use rates, limiting the drug’s access, and creating safer communities.
Isn’t it time to legalize and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol? If not, please explain why you feel that the continued criminalization of cannabis will achieve the results in the future that it has never achieved in the past?

Following is the full official White House response, with NORML’s comments interspersed…


What We Have to Say About Legalizing Marijuana

By: Gil Kerlikowske
When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics. So our concern about marijuana is based on what the science tells us about the drug’s effects.

Oh, good. Then we’ll look forward to implementation the 1972 Shafer Commission Reportor any of the other government and scientific studies that recommend the decriminalization of cannabis.


According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health- the world’s largest source of drug abuse research – marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment.

Posted Image“Addiction” links to a NIDA page noting the lifetime dependence rate of cannabis to be 9% – that is, 9 in 100 people who try cannabis will develop a dependence. Kerlikowske does not mention thatcaffeine has the same 9% rate, alcohol is a 15% rate, and tobacco is a 32% rate. NIDA scientists also rated the addictive qualities of those substances and rated cannabis about equal to caffeine in risk. The withdrawal from this rare dependence is characterized by the Institute of Medicine as “mild and short lived” and “includes restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, sleep disturbance, nausea, and cramping.” (Speaking of withdrawal, Mr. Drug Czar, you do know withdrawal from alcohol can kill a person and it’s legal, right?)
“Respiratory disease” links to a 2008 Science Daily article on a study entitled “Bullous Lung Disease due to Marijuana” which looked at the cases of ten people who came in already complaining of lung problems, who admitted they smoked pot over a year. The subject was featured in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine as it found “insufficient evidence for a causative link“. Matthew Naughton, author of the 2008 study, co-authored a 2011 study which noted “unfortunately, it is difficult to separate marijuana use from tobacco smoking which does confound these reports“. (Speaking of tobacco, Mr. Drug Czar, you do know tobacco is much worse for the lungs and it’s legal, right?)
“Cognitive impairment” links to a 1996 NIDA fact sheet on studies of cognitive impairment involving card sorting. Since then…Forgive the overkill, but as an organization that is honored to have regular cannabis consumer Carl Sagan‘s widow, Ann Druyan, as an Advisory Board Member, we’re particularly offended when the government claims science says that regular cannabis consumers are stupid. (Speaking of cognitive impairment, Mr. Drug Czar, are you aware that frequent alcohol use is shown to have incredibly deleterious effects on cognition and it’s legal?)
But our petition wasn’t about whether or not cannabis is harmful, it was whether we should consider regulating cannabis like the far more harmful substances, alcohol and tobacco.


We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms.

Posted Image“Voluntary drug treatment admissions” links to 2007 TEDS data tables showing that 37% of the people admitted to treatment for marijuana hadn’t used it in the past thirty days. These tables are based on admissions data that show 57% of marijuana treatment admissions were coerced by law enforcement (drug courts) and only 15% of such admissions are actually “voluntary drug treatment admissions”. (This is much easier to debunk when the Drug Czar links to the government tables that make our point. Thanks, Gil!)
“Visits to emergency rooms” links to 2009 DAWN data which contains this interesting bit of fine print,“Within DAWN, the drug misuse or abuse category is a group of [emergency room] visits defined broadly to include all visits associated with illicit drugs.” That is, if you mention pot, have pot on you, or your urine or blood tests positive for pot, that’s a drug-related emergency room visit. If you smoked a bowl last night, broke your leg skiing today, went to the ER, and they found metabolites of THC in your pee, that’s going into the DAWN stats as a pot-related ER visit. Meanwhile, a 2011 study in theAmerican Journal of Emergency Medicine found “marijuana dependence was associated with the lowest rates” of emergency room admittance compared to other drugs.
Posted ImageSo we have illegal marijuana which lets government arrest people and make them choose jail or rehab, then those rising rehab numbers are an indication that we need to keep arresting people. And we have emergency room data that tells us that some sick and injured people, like some Americans generally, smoke pot. Can you tell us why we shouldn’t end those charades and consider regulating cannabis like alcohol and tobacco?


Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has almost tripled over the past 20 years, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health – especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20′s. Simply put, it is not a benign drug.

Posted Image“Marijuana potency has tripled” links to a paper (“Potancy [sic] Paper 2010″) at Ole Miss’s US Pot Farm showing potency tables from 1993 to 2008 (15 years, 20 years, whatever). These figures include hashish and hash oil (concentrated preparations of cannabis), which is like throwing three Rhodes scholars into an eighth grade social studies class and then grading on a curve. Figures for all samples (including the hash) show a rise from 3.4% to 8.8% THC (2.5x, not even “almost triple”), but what they call “marijuana” goes from 3.4% to 5.8% THC (1.7x, not even double) and “sinsemilla” goes from 5.8% to 11.5% THC (2x, double).
So today’s average marijuana is as good as yesteryear’s sinsemilla and today’s average sinsemilla is twice as good as yesteryear’s sensimilla. Anybody recall any deaths, riots, or serious social disorder due to the sensimilla of 1993? As we’ve said before, potency is irrelevant as cannabis smoking is a self-titrating behavior. You smoke to get high. If you have ditchweed, you smoke a lot to get high. If you have kind bud you smoke a little to get high. Less smoke in your lungs is a good thing and by that measure, smoking more potent marijuana may be a harm reduction strategy. Besides, it’s hard to take seriously any concerns about non-toxic 11.5% THC sinsemilla when the government approves of 100% synthetic THC Marinol and marijuana of any potency has never killed anybody.
But nobody here said cannabis was a benign drug, only that it is far safer than the two current choices of legal substances, alcohol and tobacco, and we’re wondering why we couldn’t just regulate cannabis like them?


Like many, we are interested in the potential marijuana may have in providing relief to individuals diagnosed with certain serious illnesses. That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of the marijuana plant can be used as medicine. To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition.

That “ardent support” consists of six ongoing FDA-approved clinical trials (two of which have already been completed) worldwide involving subjects’ use of actual cannabis and fourteen researchers allowed to study inhaled cannabis on human subjects. It does not include a recent FDA-approved study of medical marijuana use to treat post-traumatic stress in our returning combat veterans. That study was ardently opposed by NIDA, which wouldn’t sell any Ole Miss US Pot Farm marijuana for the researchers to study. Furthermore, a NIDA spokesperson admitted to the New York Times in 2010, “As the National Institute on Drug Abuse, our focus is primarily on the negative consequences of marijuana use. We generally do not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana.”
Posted ImageThe FDA and Institute of Medicine links take you to papers from 2006 and 1999, respectively. The American Medical Association in 2009 issued a position paper stating, “smoked cannabis reduces neuropathic pain, improves appetite and caloric intake especially in patients with reduced muscle mass, and may relieve spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis.”
It’s too bad our petition wasn’t about carving exceptions in federal law to allow medical use of marijuana, as 70% of Americans support. It was whether we should regulate marijuana like we do alcohol and tobacco, like 50% of Americans support.


As a former police chief, I recognize we are not going to arrest our way out of the problem.

If you recognize that, why were there virtually the same number of arrests this year for marijuana as last year, a number that still eclipses any arrest total under Presidents Bush and Clinton? It seems you’re going to ignore our petition to end the strategy of arresting our way out of the problem by regulating marijuana like we do alcohol and tobacco.


We also recognize that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use.

Right, legalizing marijuana won’t address drug use. It will address marijuana use by regulating it like we do alcohol and tobacco. Legal marijuana would be an answer to many Americans’ health challenges. Legal marijuana would raise tax revenues to benefit society and community. Legal marijuana would help replace the “reefer madness”-style youth education proven not to work with honest, factual information. Legal marijuana removes the cost of arresting, prosecution, and monitoring on parole and probation and, by definition, eliminates crime.


That is why the President’s National Drug Control Strategy is balanced and comprehensive, emphasizing prevention and treatment while at the same time supporting innovative law enforcement efforts that protect public safety and disrupt the supply of drugs entering our communities.

Posted ImageThe president’s budget is only slightly different than the drug control budgets of his predecessor; still a two-to-one tilt toward “Supply Reduction” (interdiction and domestic and international law enforcement) versus “Demand Reduction” (treatment and prevention). Which takes us to the second part of our petition asking how the continued criminalization of cannabis will achieve the results in the future that it has never achieved in the past?


Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America. And, as we’ve seen in our work through community coalitions across the country, this approach works in making communities healthier and safer. We’re also focused on expanding access to drug treatment for addicts. Treatment works. In fact, millions of Americans are in successful recovery for drug and alcoholism today. And through our work with innovative drug courts across the Nation, we are improving our criminal justice system to divert non-violent offenders into treatment.

Posted ImageSee our rebuttal above to TEDS treatment admission statistics and forcing cannabis consumers into rehab via drug courts. Bless the millions of Americans in successful recovery for drug (?) and alcoholism who didn’t miss out on an open bed because it was taken up by a coerced cannabis consumer who hadn’t smoked weed in a month. Those drug courts only work thanks to arrests of cannabis consumers and we were wondering how the continued criminalization of cannabis will achieve the results in the future that it has never achieved in the past?


Our commitment to a balanced approach to drug control is real. This last fiscal year alone, the Federal Government spent over $10 billion on drug education and treatment programs compared to just over $9 billion on drug related law enforcement in the U.S.

Which is fuzzy math and see our rebuttal to President’s National Drug Control Strategy, which, as we mentioned, differs little from President Bush’s before him. So how is the continued criminalization of cannabis going to achieve the results in the future that it has never achieved in the past?


Thank you for making your voice heard. I encourage you to take a moment to read about the President’s approach to drug control to learn more.

Thank you for wasting America’s time ignoring her wishes. I encourage you to take a moment to actually read and answer the questions on these petitions. Every answer you gave to “whether we should consider regulating cannabis like the far more harmful substances, alcohol and tobacco” was an excuse to make alcohol and tobacco prohibited like marijuana. Every answer you gave to “how will the continued criminalization of cannabis achieve the results in the future that it has never achieved in the past?” illustrated that you’re continuing the same failed strategies as your predecessors. We the People were hoping for some change.
http://blog.norml.or...ation-petition/

Oh yeah, weed smells bad so all arguments for legalization are nullified. Place facepalm here.

Edited by Satan's Evil Twin, 09 August 2012 - 09:26 AM.

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#102 TimberWolf

TimberWolf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,870 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 04

Posted 09 August 2012 - 09:52 AM

Agree with this part of that post, but I actually think the penalty for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" in regards to pot should be as stiff as allowing underage kids to drink at a party if you get caught doing it. And the whole "second-hand smoke" bs you referenced is little more than a myth...as a cigarette smoker for 16 years now, at least here in the US, I have seen smokers' rights dwindle to the point where we're not even allowed to smoke in bars anymore, and in some places around not even on the sidewalk...if you ask me, that's getting really out of hand, but that's a topic for another thread.


I smoked cigarettes for 20 years and understand the second hand smoke myth myself, I agree the bar restrictions are asinine. I think Dennis Leary put it best when he said "What's the rule now? You can only smoke in your house under the bed with all the lights out?"

I don't think that people are going to get second hand munchies from getting it in the face, I do think that any rule that bans smoking should apply to pot. It should be simple to avoid for those of us that don't like the smell.

Edited by TimberWolf, 09 August 2012 - 09:55 AM.

I was saying Lu-Urns...

star-wars-hockey-goal.gif?w=284

#103 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 09 August 2012 - 09:58 AM

I smoked cigarettes for 20 years and understand the second hand smoke myth myself, I agree the bar restrictions are asinine. I think Dennis Leary put it best when he said "What's the rule now? You can only smoke in your house under the bed with all the lights out?"

I don't think that people are going to get second hand munchies from getting it in the face, I do think that any rule that bans smoking should apply to pot. It should be simple to avoid for those of us that don't like the smell.


Like perfume, BO, ethnic foods, and an infinitely long list of other things that offend someone's sensibilities. Mine happens to be authoritativeness and stupidity - both flush in this thread (not you, just making my feelings known because everyone cares about what I think).

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#104 Fibbing

Fibbing

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 12

Posted 09 August 2012 - 10:03 AM

If someone overuses it, it's most likely that their immediate life isn't so great, and their using it as an escape. The no control thing is BS, if I overuse cheeseburgers, does that mean it should be illegal? How bout coffee? Tylenol?

Guess what? All those things have been overused and are still currently. Yet those aren't illegal? Your argument is void.


Yew dont have to inhale the cheeze burger eh? And the cheeze burger doesnt get u baked but once you get baked then you can get the munchies and then go abuse the cheeseburger.

just sayin......................................

#105 JLumme

JLumme

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,106 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 09

Posted 09 August 2012 - 10:06 AM

It already is as good as legal in Canada for all intents and purposes.

#106 Fibbing

Fibbing

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 12

Posted 09 August 2012 - 10:07 AM

Like perfume, BO, ethnic foods, and an infinitely long list of other things that offend someone's sensibilities. Mine happens to be authoritativeness and stupidity - both flush in this thread (not you, just making my feelings known because everyone cares about what I think).


I think when someone has little man syndrome they get bent out of shape cuz they don't measure up(in more ways than one) . Those guys smoke dope and escape amirite?

#107 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 09 August 2012 - 10:11 AM

I think when someone has little man syndrome they get bent out of shape cuz they don't measure up(in more ways than one) . Those guys smoke dope and escape amirite?


I smoked dope to for one thing escape the hell that I went through growing up in the NC Public School system with mental health issues. I was a highly antisocial kid/teenager and toking a joint and reading a comic book afterward or watching a movie was my way of escaping a harsh reality that I had no control over from day one.
Posted Image

#108 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 09 August 2012 - 10:12 AM

It already is as good as legal in Canada for all intents and purposes.


Screw that. I can't stand going to my dealer. I feel like a putz doing it. I'm 27 and my dealer is a 17 year old girl who bought the number from my old guy. Why can't I walk into a store and pick up a bag of weed next to a bottle of liqueur? Oh right, because it smells bad.

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#109 JLumme

JLumme

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,106 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 09

Posted 09 August 2012 - 10:34 AM

Screw that. I can't stand going to my dealer. I feel like a putz doing it. I'm 27 and my dealer is a 17 year old girl who bought the number from my old guy. Why can't I walk into a store and pick up a bag of weed next to a bottle of liqueur? Oh right, because it smells bad.


Buy a couple ounces and stick it in the freezer, that should last you at least a year or two, it will keep that long as well.

#110 Tystick

Tystick

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,608 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 12

Posted 09 August 2012 - 01:07 PM

Watching biased documentaries and reading Wikipedia is not research.

I'm with Buck on this one. For the record, I don't care if you smoke or not, I have friends who don't, and friends who do, but I, having smoked it before, will never do it again. I noticed memory problems that affected my schooling after a while of smoking, and the decisions I've made under the influence of the drug have been resented by not only me.

I have found that I am much happier, with a brighter outlook on the world after deciding to stop and focus on things that really matter. I can safely say that I'm a lot more optimistic and cheerful, and enjoy life more now than when I smoked pot.


How is that not research? I'm listing proven facts, not pulling stuff out of no where. Also, if Marijuana was theoretically legal, that doesn't also mean it is mandatory for you to smoke it.
Posted Image

#111 Magikal

Magikal

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,748 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 09

Posted 09 August 2012 - 01:13 PM

I used to think it should be legal now I am not so sure anymore.

Medicinal reasons for sure, but for recreational use, not sure I like the idea of young kids smoking weed and burning brain cells.


Marijuana use doesn't burn brain cells. The THC fits perfectly into our cannabinoid receptors and triggers the brain to create dopamine.
Posted Image
Credit to Lahey.

October1st,2013. #HistoryWillBeMade

#112 Tystick

Tystick

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,608 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 12

Posted 09 August 2012 - 01:39 PM

Yew dont have to inhale the cheeze burger eh? And the cheeze burger doesnt get u baked but once you get baked then you can get the munchies and then go abuse the cheeseburger.

just sayin......................................


:picard: Uh huh... You are not going to go out and buy a cheeseburger because you "have the munchies". People who buy cheeseburgers do so on their preferred regular occurrence, that's just their eating habit, and it's also THEIR CHOICE. I have plenty of friends who have healthy eating habits, and when they get high, they don't stop eating healthy to go out and buy nasty food.

I think you're getting this confused with alcohol

just sayin......................................
Posted Image

#113 JLumme

JLumme

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,106 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 09

Posted 09 August 2012 - 01:51 PM

:picard:  Uh huh...  You are not going to go out and buy a cheeseburger because you "have the munchies". People who buy cheeseburgers do so on their preferred regular occurrence, that's just their eating habit, and it's also THEIR CHOICE. I have plenty of friends who have healthy eating habits, and when they get high, they don't stop eating healthy to go out and buy nasty food.

I think you're getting this confused with alcohol

just sayin......................................


Hey man, lets not turn this into an anti-cheeseburger thread. A cheeseburger can be a part of a healthy diet.

#114 butters

butters

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 09 August 2012 - 01:51 PM

as a cigarette smoker for 16 years now, at least here in the US, I have seen smokers' rights dwindle to the point where we're not even allowed to smoke in bars anymore, and in some places around not even on the sidewalk..


non smokers rights to not be exposed to smoke in bars trumps your 'smokers rights' by far. Laws like that are the bes thing to happen to bars. smoker's rights... lol... is there something enshrined in the constitution that most aren't aware of?

#115 Tystick

Tystick

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,608 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 12

Posted 09 August 2012 - 02:20 PM

Hemp is Legal in both the US (some states) and Canada. Industrial Hemp contains little or no THC. As you outlined above, hemp has many, many wonderful uses that benefit industry and personal health.

Marijuana is legal in neither country. Marijuana plants are bred and raised to contain high levels of THC for people to get ripped. People smoke the buds, not the leaves, seeds and stalks.

It's quite simple to see the difference between the two applications. Legalizing Marijuana would have no impact on industry at all because the hemp plant is already legal. Budz are not.

I invite you to smoke all the industrial hemp plant you like. You will be smoking it 24 /7 on 4:20 to get high.

:towel: :canucks:


Thank you for the response, but you misunderstood what I was getting at.

Yes Industrial hemp is legal, but IMO without the legalization of marijuana, it will never be fully utilized due to trust issues.
Lots of people I know won't buy anything hemp related because it's associated with Marijuana, which in their minds is a dangerous drug. Meaning to them, it's considered to be on the same level as Heroin, Meth, Cocaine, etc. So why would that want to start using it as a resource.

My theory is if it's legalized, in time, it will start to lose it's stereotype, and people will see that it's not so bad after all. People will begin to love hemp, and understand how it can positively help the planet and ones health. For example, Hemp can be used as renewable, low polluting source of biomass fuel (much more efficient than sunflowers or wheat), or hemp pulp could easily replace wood pulp in paper making.

Right there I see it helping the Global Warming situation, and creating more durable paper without cutting down trees.

I realize all of this is being utilized right now, but like I said, it's not being fully utilized. If hemp became popular and was used as a mass resource worldwide, the Earth would be much different than it is today. Until it's legalized, people will not fully give it the respect it deserves.

Edited by Tystick, 09 August 2012 - 02:22 PM.

Posted Image

#116 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 09 August 2012 - 02:47 PM

Buy a couple ounces and stick it in the freezer, that should last you at least a year or two, it will keep that long as well.


You meant pounds right? The only time I've ever bought a pound, if memory serves me right I paid 2500. It wasn't for me, though. And it wasn't the greatest weed either.

2 oz would last me two months not accounting for the law of diminishing sacks.


The Law of Diminishing Sacks
Faulheit, Les (2004), Humboldt County Community College Press

Among seasoned marijuana enthusiasts, there is an accepted and irrefutable phenomenon which defies the conventionally known laws of supply and demand. All marijuana satchels, regardless of size, exhaust at the same time. No matter how large the sack of ganja purchased, it will be smoked to a pile of resin at the same time as any smaller sack. This phenomenon, known as the Law of Diminishing Sacks, has baffled and cruelly victimized bakers from time immemorial.1

Posted Image

In the example graphed above, Baker A buys 1 ounce of high grade kind bud and Baker B buys ½ ounce of the same pot. Baker A and Baker B have similar tastes and preferences (providing for identical utility curves):
  • They both live with or near a similar number of other bakers;
  • They both have access to various forms of consumption paraphernalia; and
  • They both have equal amounts of time to consume at their discretion.

Although laws of supply and demand would appear to dictate Baker A would enjoy his sack for twice as long as Baker B, the Law of Diminishing Sacks reveals that Baker A and Baker B will both fully consume their bags of marijuana at the same time.

The graph displays the change of sack size over time (the delta) is the rate of consumption. The early phase of sack utilization has the highest rate of consumption (i.e. the steepest part of the curve) and Baker A, with the larger sack, has an even higher rate of consumption than Baker B. As the sack size diminishes the rate of consumption slows. Thus, within a matter of days, despite the great divergence in initial supply, both bakers find themselves with the same remaining sack.

In his groundbreaking analysis, Baking Habits of Large Sack Holders (1992), Pierson Philip von Funnk, Phd., explained the forces behind this aberrant result, observing that during the initial period of liberal consumption, Baker A and Baker B exhibit common characteristics:
  • Elevated sense of euphoria at seemingly inexhaustible supply;
  • Willingness to “pack it up” more frequently and for more people;
  • Diminishing marginal return of “bake” (increased tolerance);
  • Use of bigger bowls, including highly inefficient “party bowls”; and
  • Less efficient distribution methods (joints/ bongs rather than bowls/ bats).

F. Hans Burnham’s seminal treatise, A Regression Analysis of Sack Size and Consumption Patterns (1998), took the next step, describing the correlation between sack size and frequency and volume of baking, finding a “multiplier effect” resulting from having a large versus a small sack. This explains Baker A’s steeper curve and higher rate of consumption.

http://www.constitut...awyer&Itemid=65

So what does this mean? How should the average baker interpret this data, if at all? Can the average baker avoid the Law’s application?

In the author’s opinion, the Law cannot be avoided through any conceivable corrective measure. It is simply an unchangeable fact that an uptick in supply will be met by an uptick in consumption, thus negating any perceived supply-lengthening benefit from increased supply purchase.2

As both Baker A’s and Baker B’s sacks dwindle, both gear downward into a period of conservative consumption. At this point both Baker A and Baker B have a similar sack size, the higher rate of consumption having caught up to Baker A’s fatter sack. Soon thereafter, the curve flattens, as both Baker A and Baker B smoke less frequently and less intensely. In fact, Von Funnk discovers startling adjustments in implementation procedures as both bakers turn to bowls, and then bats, to conserve. In his controversial 1997 work, Resin Is Your Friend, Von Funnk also claims to have discovered social changes amongst bakers impacting their sack depletion rate:


“The baker with a mere corner sack remaining and no hope of replacement supply in the short term will actively seek out other bakers under the guise of needing to borrow video games, return previously loaned items or ‘have a few beers’ in the hope of having this other baker bake him.”


Von Funnk has even gone one step further, suggesting the existence of certain “predatory bakers” who, finding their own supply dwindling, will seek to initiate “group bakes” (gatherings of several bakers holding severely depleted sacks) at the homes of bakers with large sacks to exhaust those bakers’ substantial supplies. Von Funnk claims this practice “targets the baker with the closest connection to the most immediate wholesale supplier,” forcing him to initiate another “group buy” on behalf of himself and the other bakers in his immediate baking network.3 The author believes this theory credible, as the baker holding the largest sack is almost always best connected to the wholesaler in any given baking community.

Burnham’s follow-up, I’ll Even Smoke Schwag (2002), refutes Von Funnk’s findings, arguing bakers do not engage in coordinated efforts to maximize personal supply, and roundly dismissing the notion of “predatory bakers.” Burnham claims that as bakers’ supplies dwindle, a random form of “game theory” develops, with bakers furiously seeking out any other bakers who are holding. Panic ensues. All supplies are diminished. Hoarding begins as expected reciprocity (the commonly observed “I’ll pack the first, you pack the second” practice) is forgotten. This state persists until all sacks are exhausted, each within days or hours of each other, and a group purchase is once again initiated.

Extensive fieldwork with numerous teams of researchers has proven the Law to be universally valid in all baking communities. In the most recent studies, no measure of correlation was obtained between the type of marijuana and the rate of consumption. The author believes type of marijuana is not a statistically significant variable, theLaw of Diminishing Sacks applying uniformly to both seedy/stemmy dirt weed and $500/oz White Widow.<a href="http://www.constitut...r&Itemid=65#4a" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(126, 113, 66); ">4

The author’s sole recommendation at this juncture is reasoned, conservative purchase on the lower side of what others in the purchaser’s baking community have bought. This ensures against adverse economic consequences resulting from consistent overspending and the socially untoward behaviors of the so-called “predatory bakers.”

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#117 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 09 August 2012 - 03:04 PM

First question, no. Most people I know at least, that toke....usually know their limits...not to mention the fact that usually when you buy pot you buy enough for your own usage unless you're having a party, so that's irrelevant. Second question, no. As I have said, and driving is one of the highest risk activities you can do, at all...no one I know will get worse than just a little buzzed from a joint before going to a fast food drive-thru, and that's about the extent...do I know people who have smoked pot before sitting through a movie at the theater? Yes, I have done that myself, but that's hardly a high-risk activity. As far as your third question...there are cultures whose religion is based around cannabis smoking...they are Rastafaris...and guess what? When they smoke their herb for "spiritual" purposes, it's often accompanied by Bible study. They consider it a sacrament that cleans the body and mind, heals the soul, exalts the consciousness, facilitates peacefulness, brings pleasure, and brings them closer to Jah (their version of God)...yet it remains illegal in Jamaica, where most of them live. You, being such a "righteous" person...would you condemn THEIR "culture" for using pot excessively, if they claim it gives them insight from Jah and thereby brings them closer to spiritual bliss?


First off, being a Christian I actually put more emphasis on myself being a NOT righteous person. The exactly opposite of you thinking I claim to be a RIGHTEOUS person. You can at least understand that point first.

Second point, it seems like the foundation of your stance towards legalizing marijuana comes from your observations with people you know? Here's a logical fallacy, if you don't personally know any drunk drivers, that means it doesn't exist?

Thirdly, getting to your point on other cultures smoking it as on acceptable terms, as long as it's in moderation. I am sure their culture and religion knows how to handle themselves and knows when smoking marijuana is too much. Marijuana isn't inherently evil, but someone addicted to it does not yield good results.

It's like driving past the speed limit. Driving itself isn't inherently evil, but it can be dangerous. This is the same thing.

Now we can't limit people's use of marijuana, I suppose to can treat it like drinking and let people discern for themselves, but in my experience, people always go overboard with things they can do.

Will the world be a better place if marijuana was legalized, I don't think so. Just leave it where it is.
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#118 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 09 August 2012 - 03:10 PM

let people discern for themselves, but in my experience, people always go overboard with things they can do.


Anyone else thinking about outlawing religion because some people can go overboard with it?

Posted Image

Why won't somebody think of the children!?

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#119 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 09 August 2012 - 03:34 PM

First off, being a Christian I actually put more emphasis on myself being a NOT righteous person. The exactly opposite of you thinking I claim to be a RIGHTEOUS person. You can at least understand that point first.

Second point, it seems like the foundation of your stance towards legalizing marijuana comes from your observations with people you know? Here's a logical fallacy, if you don't personally know any drunk drivers, that means it doesn't exist?

Thirdly, getting to your point on other cultures smoking it as on acceptable terms, as long as it's in moderation. I am sure their culture and religion knows how to handle themselves and knows when smoking marijuana is too much. Marijuana isn't inherently evil, but someone addicted to it does not yield good results.

It's like driving past the speed limit. Driving itself isn't inherently evil, but it can be dangerous. This is the same thing.

Now we can't limit people's use of marijuana, I suppose to can treat it like drinking and let people discern for themselves, but in my experience, people always go overboard with things they can do.

Will the world be a better place if marijuana was legalized, I don't think so. Just leave it where it is.


AS AN ATHEIST.....I actually put more emphasis on being sane.

For if alcohol is legal, then so too should marijuana be, for alcohol is also addictive, as are cigarettes, and are available for responsible and regulated consumption for those who choose to partake of it.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#120 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,368 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 09 August 2012 - 03:48 PM

Look...be dense on your own time...I know people who have drank too much and got behind the wheel, one of them killed my cousin..but I don't know ANYONE, who after smoking copious amounts of pot, even wanted to go outside, much less have an inkling of wanting to get behind the wheel....I know some who get a small buzz then go and raid the Taco Bell...but your post was about "overuse", which with pot is just about impossible to do without passing out....plus...no one's ever had to go to the hospital to be treated for THC poisoning.


Um if people didn't smoke pot while driving the term hotboxing would not exist. Rolling down the street smoking endo sipping on gin and juice!




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.