Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
by Nevil Hunt
If the federal government doesn't fix the medical marijuana system, pot will be legal to grow and possess in less than 90 days. Will Cheech and Chong head north?
BONG! Some reports say that's the sound an Ontario judge's gavel made when he ruled our pot laws unconstitutional earlier this week.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Donald Taliano found that the medical marijuana system in Canada doesn't work.
Sick people are unable to find doctors willing to give them a licence to possess pot, and since the government hasn't done anything to improve the situation, the laws prohibiting growing or possessing the weed should no longer apply.
There's plenty of fodder here for jokes about Doritos sales skyrocketing or people using the judge's paperwork as giant rolling papers, but there's a serious principle at stake.
Let's leave out the pot and look at the root cause, so to speak.
Would we accept a more socially acceptable drug being withheld from those in need? Probably not. Politics is at play.
The definition of negligence is knowing there's problem, yet doing nothing about it.
In the case of medical pot, the federal government – namely Health Canada – has known the system of doctor authorizations is broken, and has done nothing to fix it.
During the case heard by Taliano, people suffering from fibromyalgia, seizures, and other afflictions spoke about visits to as many as 37 doctors, all of whom turned them down when they sought authorization for a licence to possess weed. The Canadian Medical Association has asked the federal government not to make doctors the gatekeepers of licences, but they were ignored too.
And getting that licence is just the first hurdle. If a sick person is approved for a licence, the delay in getting final authorization from Health Canada could be as long as nine months.
Legitimately sick people shouldn't have to deal with a sick system, and that's what Taliano concluded. He understood that the federal government will only act when forced to do so.
The ruling comes within days of an American report that says one per cent of U.S. power consumption is used to grow pot.
The sobering report concluded that the generators often used to power all the lights and fans for indoor grow-ops produce 17 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. It takes more than 250 liters of diesel fuel to produce one indoor pot plant.
That means a single joint represents two pounds of greenhouse gas emissions.
The good news: efficiency improvements of 75 per cent are conceivable, the author writes, just by moving the growing plants outdoors.
So if we combine our Canadian court case and the American grow-op report, the solution becomes clear. We would all be better off if pot is grown outdoors and legally.
Allow small-scale production and small-scale possession of marijuana, and you enjoy: reduced demands on our courts, removal of organized crime from distribution, hydro conservation and reduced greenhouse gases. And best of all, easy access for people who need the drug.
Do the positives of pot legalization outweigh the negatives? What effect do you think legalized pot would have in the long run?
Personally, I'm glad to see that a member of the justice system is able to look past an outdated taboo to adress a serious problem in the health community. Aside from the immediate benefits of legaliztion to both medical users and the justice system, the environmentalimpact of growing in secrecy is also quite interesting. I do wonder what impact legalization would have on Canada's clean air index.
Just tax it like you would cigarettes. Just as hazardous and addictive anyway.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote:Just tax it like you would cigarettes. Just as hazardous and addictive anyway.
Far less so, actually. That's not to say it -isn't- addictive, or that it -isn't- hazardous to your health, but to say smoking pot is as bad as smoking cigarettes is like comparing drinking a 1L bottle of beer to drinking a 1L bottle of Drain-O.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/14 20:07:03
True, but my main thing was the "tax it and regulate it" bit.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Dunno, I don't think we really have the tech for it right now.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
Well, I'd say that's a problem. Believe it or not, the reason most people don't drink and drive isn't becuase they know it's stupid and they could kill someone, it's becuase they don't want to get caught and handed a hefty fine as well as lose their liscence.
If driving high doesn't have the same risk as driving drunk, in the sense it's harder for police to detect, then I'd assume you're going to get a lot more stoned people on the road when it's legalised.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
metallifan wrote:The ruling comes within days of an American report that says one per cent of U.S. power consumption is used to grow pot.
Also, I call bs on this (not you metallifan, the article). How could that be possible?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/14 22:17:43
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
very interesting thought though, It's not the worst thing for you and if the government legalised and taxed it thry'd make money off the collage kids getting high
It's only a problem because we haven't actually been able to develop the technology because having marijuana is illegal.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote:Dunno, I don't think we really have the tech for it right now.
Aside from the distinct odor and the fact that your eyes are bloodshot for the better portion of the time you'd be considered 'impared', there's currently no roadside testing wondermachine for THC-in-blood ratio. I imagine it wouldn't be hard to build a digital monitor that takes a blood sample and reads THC levels, similar in principle to a diabetic's blood sugar monitor.
As far as more high drivers on the road - I doubt legalizing it will have a huge effect. In BC, harsher penalties for drunk driving have done very little to curb it, according to ICBC statistics. And the ban on cellphones has actually increased the number of cellphone-related crashes. I doubt a policy change regarding legalization will drastically change things.
They always dangle the 'legalization' carrot around a federal election and then, gee whiz whadayaknow, the first thing they do when parliament returns they patch the loophole.
It's already practically legal. I know in Alberta that if you are diagnoses with ADHD you can get medical weed. So, potheads go to the local clinic, tell the doctor their "syptoms" and got their prescription.
Melissia wrote:Dunno, I don't think we really have the tech for it right now.
Aside from the distinct odor and the fact that your eyes are bloodshot for the better portion of the time you'd be considered 'impared', there's currently no roadside testing wondermachine for THC-in-blood ratio. I imagine it wouldn't be hard to build a digital monitor that takes a blood sample and reads THC levels, similar in principle to a diabetic's blood sugar monitor.
.
Tbh few friends of mine get high, but dont have any of those symptoms. Kinda pisses me off but it isn't as easy to tell compared to drunk people. How do you not know this? Arent you in canada? :p
You're not playing the game like I play it...why aren't you playing the game like I play it?! O_O
Emperors Faithful wrote:I guess my only concern would be driving then. Isn't it a fair bit harder to test for people that are high than it is for people that are drunk?
Those driving below 10 mph are high.
A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon. ~Napoleon
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
snapsepaven wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I guess my only concern would be driving then. Isn't it a fair bit harder to test for people that are high than it is for people that are drunk?
Those driving below 10 mph are high.
Or are 80 years old.
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I guess my only concern would be driving then. Isn't it a fair bit harder to test for people that are high than it is for people that are drunk?
It's not physically addictive. I've done coke and walked away just fine, but believe me, anyone who gets addicted to pot would have gotten addicted to something else. I don't see caffeine on that chart anywhere... Tell me that smoking a couple bowls every few days is ANYWHERE near as harmful as drinking a cup or two of coffee every day.
And the "driving high" argument is pure BS. What proof do you have that stoners are as, more or less likely to drive high? None but what you think. I honestly think it will work out about the same as driving drunk, but even that is overhyped. Be honest, but don't answer aloud; have you ever driven drunk, even once? How many babies did you kill?
On to more annoying notes, even though I've been off the weed for a while, I'm working an 8 hour on 4-20. I really wanted to go play guitar for people in the spirit of the holiday.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/15 03:10:47
It's also worth noting that the high from pot only lasts about 2-4 hours without much in the way of a recovery period. You can smoke up, and then drive 2 hours later and you'll be fine.
Fafnir wrote:It's also worth noting that the high from pot only lasts about 2-4 hours without much in the way of a recovery period. You can smoke up and then drive. 2 hours later, you'll be fine.
If pot lasted longer than the 2-4 hours I don't think you'd hear the stoners complain Eating THC on the other hand screws you up for long periods and gives a totally different high.
MikZor wrote:
We can't help that american D&D is pretty much daily life for us (Aussies)
Walking to shops, "i'll take a short cut through this bush", random encounter! Lizard with no legs.....
I kid Since i avoid bushlands that is But we're not that bad... are we?
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:And the "driving high" argument is pure BS. What proof do you have that stoners are as, more or less likely to drive high? None but what you think. I honestly think it will work out about the same as driving drunk, but even that is overhyped. Be honest, but don't answer aloud; have you ever driven drunk, even once? How many babies did you kill?
Maybe you're naive, but people do drink and drive and they have killed people. Why would people driving high be any less of a problem? "Oh it's alright, I've only had a few beers cones, I'll just pop over to Miccy D's."
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
MikZor wrote:
We can't help that american D&D is pretty much daily life for us (Aussies)
Walking to shops, "i'll take a short cut through this bush", random encounter! Lizard with no legs.....
I kid Since i avoid bushlands that is But we're not that bad... are we?
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
4000+
6000+ Order. Unity. Obedience.
Thousand Sons 4000+
