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.

Shuma wrote:All at the cost of a dramatic uptick in usage statistics across all demographics.

I fail to see the logic in that. I don't expect the number to stay stagnant, but how many people are now drinking Absinthe in Cali because it is legal?

One could put forward an argument that the 'pot culture' at large would increase the numbers substantially, but I still cannot imagine enourmous amounts of people just up and becoming stoners. Even if everyone in the U.S. got up after pot was legalized, and smoked one joint amongst friends, not much would change at all. The majority of those people would not enjoy smoking pot, just as many pot smokers do not enjoy drinking alcohol, even though they tried it only once.

In all honesty I think the minority parties of the BC Gov't had the right idea when they considered legalizing it to help the economy. Dope isn't as dangerous as the silver-sober BC Liberal party would have people believe. Let's not forget that most of these guys are preaching the so-called 'ill-effects' without any experience with the stuff themselves. Typical. Meanwhile, the people with some sense have come up with a viable solution to the legalization woes.


Permits - these can be sold at a very small price by the Gov't to anyone wishing to grow. These permits would allow a Government Health Official to inspect the grower's operations, and make sure they're conducting their operation properly, and that they aren't spiking their product with other drugs (A common problem in places like East Hastings in Vancouver).

No home-run stores - Weed can be sold to smoke shops and liquor stores, but home operations could be made illegal, to help prevent kids from buying it.

Driving/Operating Restrictions - Same story as booze. If you're stoned, you're a risk on the road or in the workplace whether you admit it or not. Not as large a risk as a drunk driver/operator, but still a risk. Just copy and paste drunk driving laws, but change "drunk" to "stoned". If you get pulled over and you have bloodshot eyes and smell like weed, the cops will take you in and your license gets revoked.

Age limit - same as booze. People go to the store to buy weed, they have to show ID. Like booze, kids can still get a fake or a boot and getahold of it, but it would help take it out of kids' hands if that's what they're worried about.


Honestly I just don't see what governments are so up in arms about over the subject. It's no more harmful than alcohol, as was pointed out, and that's fine and legal. I think dropping the laws against it would cut down on a tonne of drug-related crime. For one thing, nations could make a lot of money importing and exporting the stuff. And at this point they can't really afford to let any potential cash go.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I imagine even more people will grow it themselves, (it's not all that hard).

I don't see why. Unless the cost is prohibitive I doubt you would see much of a home grown market. It's not the most easy plant to grow.

Most of the market is homegrown, most of the weed I buy comes from Canada, Oregon or right here in Washington. They usually grow it in basements, there are warehouses and traincars where people do grow operations as well. I happen to know at least 5 different growers in my area. It's not exactly something you just try to do without knowing what your doing. But it's not rocket science.

I fail to see the logic in that. I don't expect the number to stay stagnant, but how many people are now drinking Absinthe in Cali because it is legal?

Absinthe is just a "more advanced" form of drinking. Something with an established legal market. Alternatives have and will exist to it that will lesson its effect on the demographics it targets. Pot does not have this issue. It would be released legally into a vacuum. People smoking already would continue, and anyone that has ever wanted too or been tempted, but stayed away due to illegality would likely start. As it's an addictive substance with a primary market not already involved in it's addiction a large uptick in use would likely be sustained in the primary demographic that had not already participated.

Legalizing absinthe: People already drinking will drink it.
Legalizing Pot: No previous legal alternative equates to a large increase in usage.

Its an economic argument. Pot would flank an empty market and rapidly dominate it, absinthe was just one more product in the alcohol wars.

metallifan wrote:In all honesty I think the minority parties of the BC Gov't had the right idea when they considered legalizing it to help the economy. Dope isn't as dangerous as the silver-sober BC Liberal party would have people believe. Let's not forget that most of these guys are preaching the so-called 'ill-effects' without any experience with the stuff themselves. Typical. Meanwhile, the people with some sense have come up with a viable solution to the legalization woes.


Permits - these can be sold at a very small price by the Gov't to anyone wishing to grow. These permits would allow a Government Health Official to inspect the grower's operations, and make sure they're conducting their operation properly, and that they aren't spiking their product with other drugs (A common problem in places like East Hastings in Vancouver).

No home-run stores - Weed can be sold to smoke shops and liquor stores, but home operations could be made illegal, to help prevent kids from buying it.

Driving/Operating Restrictions - Same story as booze. If you're stoned, you're a risk on the road or in the workplace whether you admit it or not. Not as large a risk as a drunk driver/operator, but still a risk. Just copy and paste drunk driving laws, but change "drunk" to "stoned". If you get pulled over and you have bloodshot eyes and smell like weed, the cops will take you in and your license gets revoked.

Age limit - same as booze. People go to the store to buy weed, they have to show ID. Like booze, kids can still get a fake or a boot and getahold of it, but it would help take it out of kids' hands if that's what they're worried about.


Honestly I just don't see what governments are so up in arms about over the subject. It's no more harmful than alcohol, as was pointed out, and that's fine and legal. I think dropping the laws against it would cut down on a tonne of drug-related crime. For one thing, nations could make a lot of money importing and exporting the stuff. And at this point they can't really afford to let any potential cash go.

I agree with this post completely.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why would the government of a place where no one chooses to smoke or drink prohibit smoking and drinking? With the ideal in place the law doesn't need to be.

The substances are addictive. The ideal can not exist before the law, or some other form of method prohibiting it (such as the cocaine vaccine being tested now).

So then you're not merely professing the ideal, you're professing a desired government policy. Everyone who campaigns for a specific policy has an ideal they are attempting to reach through their advocacy, that's no defense against claims of hypocrisy being levied against them for engaging in acts they wish to see prohibited.

ShumaGorath wrote:As it's an addictive substance

I hear this arguement a lot. Like I've said, I've been "testing" the drug out on myself for a long time now. I've never once heard of, nor experianced physical withdrawls from pot. Now mentally pot is addictive, hell yeah it's addictive! But it's exaclty in that same sense that TV is addictive, porn, video games and warhammer 40k are addictive. In fact I feel much more addicted to painting little models and playing zelda than weed. Perhaps that's why I bought nobz instead of a dub.

Norwulf wrote: I agree with this post completely.

Because it's a good idea mebe?

I'm not saying that from a stoner's persective either. Don't smoke anymore. Like most everyday people, I just see the sense in it.

Of course, if Gordon Campbell would rather pay off provincial debts by privating our lakes, rivers, and forests I guess that's how it is. Funny how we never see that money actually invested anywhere though...

Orkeosaurus wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why would the government of a place where no one chooses to smoke or drink prohibit smoking and drinking? With the ideal in place the law doesn't need to be.

The substances are addictive. The ideal can not exist before the law, or some other form of method prohibiting it (such as the cocaine vaccine being tested now).

So then you're not merely professing the ideal, you're professing a desired government policy. Everyone who campaigns for a specific policy has an ideal they are attempting to reach through their advocacy, that's no defense against claims of hypocrisy being levied against them for engaging in acts they wish to see prohibited.

Then I hope you don't ever go to a movie theatre, boxing match, or play a videogame. Because thats violence. It's not hypocritical to wish for a specific ideal and system of governance while personally existing in another. Communists aren't hypocrites for living in america and having currency based jobs. I live here, in the real world. Being willing to trade it for another doesn't mean I somehow begin to act like I already live there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

metallifan wrote:

Norwulf wrote: I agree with this post completely.

Because it's a good idea mebe?

I'm not saying that from a stoner's persective either. Don't smoke anymore. Like most everyday people, I just see the sense in it.

Of course, if Gordon Campbell would rather pay off provincial debts by privating our lakes, rivers, and forests I guess that's how it is. Funny how we never see that money actually invested anywhere though...

Actually my post didn't give an opinion on the subject. It just explained an economic and social principle behind another. I am against the legalization personally.

ShumaGorath wrote:Then I hope you don't ever go to a movie theatre, boxing match, or play a videogame. Because thats violence. It's not hypocritical to wish for a specific ideal and system of governance while personally existing in another. Communists aren't hypocrites for living in america and having currency based jobs. I live here, in the real world. Being willing to trade it for another doesn't mean I somehow begin to act like I already live there.

I can imagine Mark Sanford making similar arguments: "My fellow citizens, one of the reasons you elected me is because I am a proponent of strong family values. But this is the real world and in the real world, people cheat on their spouses. In the real world, elected officials use public funds to enjoy weekends in Brazil with their girlfriends, er, soulmates, I meant soulmates. Just because I cheated on my wife doesn't mean that I don't support the ideal of the family, itself grounded in monogamous fidelity, being the most fundamental unit of society."

As for seeing an action movie making me a hypocrite if I also profess non-violence, I will (despite the many, many assumptions required) accept that. All that means is that, by your own proposed standard, you're also a hypocrite for arguing for a return to prohibition while planning on getting "dead drunk" this very evening.

ShumaGorath wrote:Actually my post didn't give an opinion on the subject. It just explained an economic and social principle behind another. I am against the legalization personally.

I did notice that, but I wasn't referring to yours Shuma (Though I guess "Norwulf said" would point to that easily enough)

As for seeing an action movie making me a hypocrite if I also profess non-violence, I will (despite the many, many assumptions required) accept that. All that means is that, by your own proposed standard, you're also a hypocrite for arguing for a return to prohibition while planning on getting "dead drunk" this very evening.

Well, professing non violence then enjoying the spectacle of violence is about as hypocritical as what I am. So if we are accepting such a wide and toothless definition of hypocrite than I will agree. We are hypocrites. Glory to us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

metallifan wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Actually my post didn't give an opinion on the subject. It just explained an economic and social principle behind another. I am against the legalization personally.

I did notice that, but I wasn't referring to yours Shuma (Though I guess "Norwulf said" would point to that easily enough)

Oh, cool cool.

The main points are:
1. non-intoxicating hemp is already grown for weething material and paper, so legalising weed wouldn't change that
2. medical marijuana is a joke if used by non-terminal patients, and THC can be extracted or produced and used in a nebuliser,
3. 'the sin tax' as someone put would always be needed due to the cost national health service, just like alcohol (at least in the UK)
4. but yes ciggeretes and alcohol are just as dangerous as weed, in many different ways.
5. cutting out the criminals serves no purpose as criminals are criminals and will find another illegal way to make money

i don't like smoking of any kind, but i also hate excessive drinking in people, especially drink drivers, they should get far greater punishments.

ShumaGorath wrote:So if we are accepting such a wide and toothless definition of hypocrite than I will agree.

Actually, this is the common definition. And it has very sharp teeth. As I'm sure you've noted, many a public figure has been shred to pieces by them but Americans seem to love (many of) them in any case. Pissing contest aside, my original comment was aimed at pointing this out in relation to your calling yourself "unelectable."

Here shuma you can use my favorite mug now!


@bluntmandc: how is weed dangerous? I guess getting arrested can be dangerous. also I don't understand why using medical marijuana for non terminal patients is a joke.

Norwulf wrote:@bluntmandc: how is weed dangerous? I guess getting arrested can be dangerous. also I don't understand why using medical marijuana for non terminal patients is a joke.

He did little more than quote numerous politicians. There is a lack of substance to most of his claims.

Norwulf stole that from my cupboard, either while I was watching Reservoir Dogs or reading Gandhi, can't remember.

I dont want to sound uncool or anything, i mean, i dont mind a wee bit of ganja every now and then, and obviously i know where you stand Alb, but didnt we just rebrand it as class B because it DID make people turn to drugs more readily?

I think its a big can of worms to open if we legalize it.

Manchu wrote:Norwulf stole that from my cupboard, either while I was watching Reservoir Dogs or reading Gandhi, can't remember.

It was probably right after I beat my wife at a feminist rally I was leading, or when I was murdering people for not being peaceful enough.

mattyrm wrote:but didnt we just rebrand it as class B because it DID make people turn to drugs more readily?

I've always wondered if marijuana is a considered a "gateway drug" because of its own chemical effects on a person's body or because of it's cultural/social status of being illegal but fairly common means that it is often the point of entry for most otherwise law abiding citizens into the world of criminal activities.

Manchu wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:So if we are accepting such a wide and toothless definition of hypocrite than I will agree.

Actually, this is the common definition. And it has very sharp teeth. As I'm sure you've noted, many a public figure has been shred to pieces by them but Americans seem to love (many of) them in any case. Pissing contest aside, my original comment was aimed at pointing this out in relation to your calling yourself "unelectable."

Oh, i thought this entire pissing contest was framed over an insult, rather than an acknowledgment of the fact that being a hypocrite is in many ways practically very difficult and sometimes even unavoidable.

Manchu wrote:

mattyrm wrote:but didnt we just rebrand it as class B because it DID make people turn to drugs more readily?

I've always wondered if marijuana is a considered a "gateway drug" because of its own chemical effects on a person's body or because of it's cultural/social status of being illegal but fairly common means that it is often the point of entry for most otherwise law abiding citizens into the world of criminal activities.

I've never bought that arguement, yeah I'm biased and I have tried almost every other drug there is since trying pot. But I have known just as many many people who just stuck with pot and beer, and in the end I just smoke pot, rarely I'll have a beer or two. So I don't believe that, I think If your the kind of person who will try heroin, you'll try it before or after pot it's just a matter of which one is available first. Given that weed is the cheapest, easiest drug I can find, I'd say thats why people try it first.

Something I just remembered: salvia. It's legal here, you can buy it at head shops. Now if THAT s t is leagal I can't understand how weed isn't.

@Shuma: In my life, I could not avoid being called a hypocrite. But I like to think it's healthy for me to at least acknowledge that I am one from time to time.

@Shuma: Oh, no no no. Wasn't trying to insult you or reference your thoughts outside of this thread. Sorry for that!

@Norwulf: All I mean is, it's easy to rationalize breaking the law against buying/possessing/using weed because the law seems counterintuitive on its face to many people. And once you've broken one law regarding drug use, maybe it's easy to break another. Typical slippery slope argument, yes. But look at it logistically: once you hook up with smoking crowd and dealers to get weed, you're likely to be one step closer than before to being able to find that heroin. And it's probably easier for most 12-25 year olds to find a pot dealer than someone selling heroin, I'm guessing.

Norwulf wrote:Something I just remembered: salvia. It's legal here, you can buy it at head shops. Now if THAT s t is leagal I can't understand how weed isn't.

Because the effect wears off quickly.

No really, that's why. You don't stay high long enough to get far in a vehicle or pose much of a risk to anyone but yourself. It's a stupid defense, and it just shows that they won't legalize weed because it's taboo. Twofold because they did with Salvia exactly what I said they should do with weed.

Sometimes all you can do is shake your head at the stupidity of the people running our world.

Manchu wrote:But look at it logistically: once you hook up with smoking crowd and dealers to get weed, you're likely to be one step closer than before to being able to find that heroin.

I go to a party, in which I drink alcohol. At this party there happens to be an individual that is selling a whole mess of drugs, none of which I want any part of. If I were to be holding a joint, instead of a beer, and I were to be under the influence of either individually. Being drunk would make me more inclined to try something incredibly stupid. I have jumped off roofs while drunk, I have gotten in fights with bushes while drunk, and people too occasionally. None of this has ever, ever, happened when under the influence of marijuana.

'Gateway drug' is code for, that individual made a really bad decision (or was more inclined to do it for various reason, to begin with), so we are going to use this person as an example to scare everyone else off. 'Gateway drugs' do not exist, only problems within individuals do.

The fact that no stoner I know, has ever gotten into heroin, speaks to this within my own personal experience. If you want to do heroin, by all means, just don't pretend like the fact that someone hit a joint, THEN did heroin, means anything besides they were inclined to do heroin from the get go.

If I lock myself in a tiny box, I won't have to deal with the reality of all this either. Blame the individuals that make bad decisions, and those that help them make those decisions. Blaming an entire community, for no reason besides needing a blatant scape-goat, changes nothing.

@Wrex: Not saying that I think marijuana is more dangerous than booze. I'm wondering if marijuana is classified as such a dangerous drug (justified because it supposedly leads to use of other drugs) in US and UK because of it's actual properties (I think not) or because of a situation that has been created by the fact that it is illegal.

Statistics prove the gateway drug theory right. The causes are many and manifold, but statistically if you take pot you are an order of magnitude more likely to try the next thing up on the chain.

ShumaGorath wrote:Then I hope you don't ever go to a movie theatre, boxing match, or play a videogame. Because thats violence.

That makes little sense.

To condemn the shooting innocent people, but to enjoy movies where actors pretend to shoot innocent people for the enjoyment of the audience, is not hypocritical. To be hypocritical the person must cause innocent people to be shot; this is not necessarily done even by watching real acts of violence, much less staged acts. To condemn the viewing of violent media while enjoying violent movies would be hypocritical. (Of course, this person would most likely argue that it is not hypocritical for him because he only opposes the viewing of violent movies due to the negative effects on those who are of lesser mental integrity than himself, or something to that effect.)

A gateway drug assumes that someone started with it, limiting the substance to one thing.

I drank when I was five years old, that must be the reason why I do so much goddam heroin these days... wait... .

Shuma wrote:Statistics prove the gateway drug theory right.

I don't want to make a huge deal out of this, but statistics are A.) easily manipulable, and B.) often a poor source for accurate information.

If all the numbers were gathered from individuals that made bad decisions, then you will get those results in turn, by ignoring the rest of the necessary numbers. I would still like to see some information on that if you have it.

@Orkeo: This is why I just took the example for granted after noting it required many assumptions (which coalesce into something like "supporting violence in media translates into real life violence"); by accepting the flawed example, we can still get to agreement that it is hypocritical to say that alcohol should be banned as socially harmful while planning on getting drunk.

@Shuma & Wrex: My question is not aimed at whether or not marijuana is indeed a gateway drug but whether or not this is because of its intrinsic chemical qualities or because of social conditions created by making it illegal.