Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

BubberMiley

Members
  • Content Count

    10,818
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by BubberMiley

  1. If I want a law that requires everyone to wear purple shoes on the second Tuesday of every month I can damned well start up a campaign to do so.

    Why on earth would you think otherwise?  Why on earth would you want otherwise?

    You can start up your campaign, Argus. But the passage of the law should be illegal, because laws are meant to protect people, not oppress them.

  2. It's not like the system as it stands limits access to meth. If it were decriminalized, we would be better able to help these people, rather than send them out in the streets to steal and rob to support their habit. We could also be better able to keep it out of the hands of kids (I'm beginning to sound like a broken record).

  3. It just promotes disrespect for the law, and that's a shame, because most laws make a lot of sense.

    I think all smoking habits are ultimately bad, and I don't like seeing a thriving black market system where drugs are sold in school. Alcohol is not sold in school nearly as often (when I went, there was virtually none available). Why do you suppose that is? I think it's because the underground economy for it doesn't exist anymore, now that it's decriminalized and regulated.

    And BTW, yes, I'm very very happy I don't live in the States.

  4. Picasso was a nasty, bad tempered man who treated his women like dogs and his children like animals. He also was great fan of Joseph Stalin. Yeats was obsessed with the occult and eugenics.

    What is it with conservatives that they are so quick to resort to character assassination when they can't win an argument? This from someone who claims his poorly constructed arguments are "logical" and that he, unlike is pot-smoking friends, isn't a moron.

  5. But what's sad is that someone would be willing to make the leap in logic to equate the two issues. Associating the Liberal Party with the sponsorship scandal is, well, obvious. Associating the Conservative Party with the Hell's Angels is, well, sad.  A desperate, pathetic effort, really.

    My point, Kimmy, is you have to ask the question WHY are these people opposed to decriminalization, when the present system of laws doesn't work, when it facilitates access to kids, when it only hurts people who have not hurt anyone else, and when there is a huge, expensive underground economy profiting off of it. I'm not saying they are making money off the current system, but someone is and their actions certainly suggest they don't want to change that.

  6. I know it's difficult for you to understand the logical progression of a discussion, Err, but perhaps if you wave aside the smoke in front of you and try to focus you would understand why this is a perfectly logical reply to someone who says banning things only encourages a black market.

    Actually, Argus, it's not a logical argument at all. You demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between making something illegal and banning it. My point was that "banning" something simply doesn't work. It just creates a black market and changes the means of distribution. From that, you extrapolate that this argument would lead to legalizing child pornography. Child pornography laws as they exist have sadly done nothing to eliminate child pornography, but they are necessary to enforce negative consequences to the dirtbags who consume/create it. It's the same with all crimes. The thing with weed is it is a VICTIMLESS crime, and there is no logical (or even moral) argument for legal consequences. Therefore, we wind up with a situation where the laws do nothing but hurt people who never hurt anyone else. The laws don't prevent distribution; in fact, they just make it easier for kids to have access.

    Sadly, you're other simplistic moralistic arguments that all your friends are morons and that I can't express myself properly aren't really worth responding to.

  7. I'd be in favour of banning cigarettes, frankly. They serve no useful purpose and cause considerable health damage. The problem I have with banning alcohol is that used in moderation it's harmless. It doesn't screw your mind over like grass and there are no health effects. Unfortunately, a lot of people find themselves incapable of drinking safely or intelligently (Could someone possibly explain the attraction of binge drinking to me?). However, marijuana isn't something which can be "sipped", as, for example, a nice wine. You smoke it only to get stoned. I'm not in favour of people getting stoned, frankly. People are prone to acting like morons even without getting drunk or stoned. And that only worsens when they get drugs and too much alcohol into their system.

    For starters, haven't you figured it out yet (gun control, drugs, whatever) that enacting laws to ban something don't actually ban it? They just create a black market and deregulate access.

    Second, weed is more harmless than alcohol. Alcohol kills brain cells; weed activates receptors in the brain designed to receive THC--the active drug. It's true. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know.

    Further proving you haven't a clue what you're talking about, you say it can't be "sipped." How do you know?

  8. I think that topic was ignored, for the most part, because banning handguns is so impossible it's a concept barely worth responding to. Sure, if handguns could be banned, most sane people (which excludes most CPC supporters) would be jumping all over it. But the gun control legislation (and drug control legislation) has shown that laws don't work at banning things; they just change the method of their distribution. So CPCers who wail about the expense and ineffectiveness of gun laws hypocritically are silent when it comes to the expense and ineffectiveness of drug laws.

  9. I have enough personal experience with it and (and experience counts for a lot in this world). I'm not saying it's all that great, but I've spent most of the last 20 years smoking it everyday. It's terribly habit forming, but there are no side effects when I decide to stop for a few weeks--just a lot of cravings and some vivid dreams. Smoking is never good for you, but there's no evidence it causes cancer (that doesn't mean it doesn't though).

    In terms of its strength, when it's a drug that is impossible to OD on, strength doesn't really make a difference. It just means you don't need to smoke as much to get high, which can only be good for your lungs.

    It's not a hallucinogen (because you don't hallucinate), and you can trust me. I won't hurt you.

    My main reasoning for decriminalization is that I would agree with anyone that no adolescent should have ready access (see terribly habit forming above). Criminalization opens the black market up right into our schools. That is bad. Talking about respect, I have a hard time respecting someone who supports the status quo knowing that it only makes it easier for dirtbags to sell it to kids.

    Besides, just because you don't respect us, doesn't mean you have the right to criminalize us.

    We ain't hurting you dude.

  10. You just have to look at who's getting paid under the current system.

    Liquor and tobacco companies would probably be happy to have a new vice to exploit, so I'm not too suspicious of them. Police chiefs, as I understand, have been in favour of decriminalization. The unions, however, have not because no union has ever been in favour of something that might jeopardize their bread and butter--and pot laws give cops work.

  11. The only reason any party would defend the status quo is they have a stake in the economy that feeds off it. Think about it. A system where kids get unfettered access to the drug (ask any junior high student what's easier to for them to buy: pot or alcohol? The answer has been pot for the past 30 years) and where the black market economy is likely in the billions, why would anyone who really has the best interests of kids at heart be opposed to regulation and decriminalization? Why would they be opposed to cutting the organized crime monopoly and allowing citizens to have a few plants for personal use? Because they're making money.

  12. Nothing in my basement but a lot of crap for a garage sale next spring, Sharkman.

    Nonetheless, I've always felt strongly that the only reason those plants are illegal is to maintain the black market that feeds all those powers-what-be. If Mr. averagejoe were allowed a plant or two in his basement for personal use, those asian gangs would lose a major revenue source. If everything was legal and above board, we could also prevent the fire hazards etc. that exist out there now.

    Of course, the CPC would never agree to that. Makes you wonder who's in bed with organized crime.

  13. Leafless, I've never voted Liberal in my life, so I doubt I would be one to generate Liberal propaganda. My feelings about your contempt disguised as moral superiority goes beyond party lines.

    And you can't tell me the general population had a clue about the constitution when they voted on Charlottetown. Nobody is ever interested enough in constitutional issues to make an informed decision. That's why I'm opposed to referenda in general. They just voted no because Mulroney had a 12% approval rating and they wanted to vote against anything he wanted.

×
×
  • Create New...