Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by BubberMiley

  1. I think Martin was simply unwilling to give a serious answer to a ridiculous question, so he had to plan a reaction--think of something funny to say. On that, he was maybe not so successful.

    Martin would look more foolish if he appeared to take seriously a question so obviously derived from the FoxNews "War on Christmas."

    I would give Harper the same benefit of the doubt. It's sometimes difficult to react to obviously foolish questions, and I'm sure that during his pause after being asked whether he loved Canada, he was just thinking "WTF?"

  2. He also said that he would increase funding to the military. In any case, most of the coalition of the willing involves countries making a symbolic effort of a few troops (or knitting a few booties for the American soldiers). Canada could certainly afford a few troops, but obviously Harper feels that would be politically damaging. Such a brave leader.

  3. It’s kind of ironic how the anti-decriminalization forces are the ones coming up with half-baked data to support their arguments. And when their arguments are shut down, they never respond because they’re happy to leave well enough alone. They have the status quo on their side.

    Argus has said things like:

    Which I can say is exactly why pot is banned. Because society doesn't want people smoking pot, because it doesn't approve of pot, and because it feels those who use one mind-altering substance are more likely to try other mind-altering substances which are more dangerous.

    Isn’t it potentially more damaging to group a relatively innocuous drug (in that you can’t OD from it) with more dangerous drugs like crystal meth and cocaine under the Criminal Code? By doing so, you strengthen the black market network to the point where it is prominent in every high school (the current black market is practically founded on the criminalization of weed) and create a situation where kids might think “Hey, I’ve had no negative side effects from smoking weed and it’s a lot of fun. This law makes no sense. Maybe meth, which is covered under the same law, is equally innocuous and fun.”

    If weed is a gateway drug (though after more than 20 years of daily smoking, I haven’t moved on to anything stronger), it is only one because its criminalization strengthens the black market and promotes disrespect for the law. That’s why I think this is an issue that doesn’t just affect pot-smokers. In fact, if people are truly serious about wanting to protect kids from drug dependence and would like to reduce or eliminate a primary source of revenue for organized crime, they should recognize the “salience” of this issue and call for decriminalization.

  4. Waitaminute! I've had a few puffs and I can think more clearly. Maybe making something illegal and banning it are essentially the same thing. Nonetheless, that's irrelevant because the product still doesn't disappear after it's been banned; negative legal consequences are only imposed. And the point was, those negative legal consequences are unfair when there are no victims from the crime.

    Now, back to my session.

  5. Uhmm, explain it to me. If you ban something, you are making it illegal. If it's not illegal, it's not banned.

    I'm glad they banned murder. I can rest easy it will never happen again.

    So you DON'T know of a difference. Interesting.

    If something has been banned, that means it's gone, eradicated, no longer among us. If something is illegal, that means it's frowned upon and there are negative consequences for it.

    And you call other people morons.

  6. They might want to look at how consumption of alcohol increased dramatically under prohibition and has steadily declined since. No, wait, they wouldn't want to look at that, because they don't care for actual facts. Just bizarre arguments, like some drug addicts have done bad things therefore the status quo must be maintained (because it's working so well).

  7. This argument is going in circles. It seems that the CPCers will never listen to reason on this issue. What it comes down to is they want the right to criminalize anything that conflicts with what they perceive as a "traditional value", even if it involves something completely victimless. (And even if it could potentially improve the existing situation.) This is why, as a former PCer, I could never support the existing party.

  8. No, I enjoy it too much to stop. That would make me instantly nostalgic, and I see no reason to stop other than potential lung damage and stupid laws.

    But again, we're talking small amounts here, so I don't think Canada would become Hell's Angels central because they're allowed to possess half an ounce of pot. I also don't see any reason for increased usage. The existing laws don't limit access in any way (in fact, they facilitate it to minors). I wouldn't be surprised if usage were reduced under decriminalization because the black market would collapse, leaving it in the hands of the few who would bother to grow their own.

  9. First off, organized crime exists only because there is a black market. Black markets are created by criminalization of marketable products. There weren't Hell's Angels before drug laws, just like there was no Al Capone before prohibition.

    It seems ironic that you would forfeit Canada's sovereignty on this issue considering some states have already changed their laws in a similar way. In the 1970s, California revised their laws as follows:

    "in addition to repealing various minor marijuana offenses, S.B. 95 adopted six major forms affecting California's marijuana laws, which together have had a major impact on the fiscal costs of marijuana law enforcement in the state and in reducing the legal, social and fiscal costs of marijuana law enforcement:

    No arrest or booking for individuals apprehended in possession of small amounts of marijuana;

    No jail or incarceration for persons convicted of possession of small amounts of marijuana;

    Furnishing of small amount of marijuana for no consideration is treated as simple possession, not sale;

    Transportation of small amounts of marijuana is treated as simple possession, not felony transportation;

    Elimination of life-long criminal records for marijuana possession arrests and convictions, and placing a two-year limit on the retention of such records and the use of such records. against individuals arrested and convicted of specified offenses;

    Abolition of recidivist penalties for simple possession, giving and away and transporting small amounts of marijuana."

  10. You're right. It doesn't work. It was just one of many sites discussing cannabinoid receptors, which were discovered by neuro scientists in 1988. They are receptors in the brain which appear to have no other purpose than to receive THC. It suggest the human brain has actually evolved (or been designed, that's another debate) to accept and use THC.

  • Create New...