marijuana

Should marijuana be leagal ?

  • yes ( but not to minors)

    Votes: 96 78.0%
  • no

    Votes: 19 15.4%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 5 4.1%
  • Other (IE for medical use only etc)

    Votes: 3 2.4%

  • Total voters
    123
oldjones said:
And I'm saying this is as transparent a smokescreen for the status quo as not registering back voters back in the fities and sixties unless they passed the test of reciting the Declaration of Independence.

It's a sham.

Now you are trying to insight racism.

Look you can agree or disagree but THC effects the motor and cognitive skills while under the influence. I am not saying there is no safe level but you can not say in a court of law with any serenity it is different for each person and expect to establish laws allowing its use.
 
oldjones said:
And I'm saying this is as transparent a smokescreen for the status quo as not registering back voters back in the fities and sixties unless they passed the test of reciting the Declaration of Independence.

Of course it's the 'best route'. Having every voter thoroughly versed in the Constitution would also be the best route, but we don't. We say the level of test that works for one applys to all.

Anything else is a just pretending to be fair and just.

When there's such a test for alcohol, let us know.

I am glad you added more than just the racist crap.

The breathalyzer is accepted in all courts in the US as a functional test and refusal to take the test is an automatic suspension of driving privileges.
 
Should marijuana be legal ?

No.
We presently have enough health related problems with booze and tobacco, why introduce another?

Amsterdam made all drugs legal years ago.
What did that solve?
All it did was provide free dope to anyone who asked creating addicts who while getting drugs for free, still couldn't hold down a job and resorted to crime to pay their other bills.
 
Here's a recent article from the Economist about the experience in Portugal where all drug possession was decriminalized in 2001.

Portugal's drug policy

Treating, not punishing
Aug 27th 2009 | LISBON
From The Economist print edition

The evidence from Portugal since 2001 is that decriminalisation of drug use and possession has benefits and no harmful side-effects

Illustration by Peter Schrank
IN 2001 newspapers around the world carried graphic reports of addicts injecting heroin in the grimy streets of a Lisbon slum. The place was dubbed Europe’s “most shameful neighbourhood” and its “worst drugs ghetto”. The Times helpfully managed to find a young British backpacker sprawled comatose on a corner. This lurid coverage was prompted by a government decision to decriminalise the personal use and possession of all drugs, including heroin and cocaine. The police were told not to arrest anyone found taking any kind of drug.

This “ultraliberal legislation”, said the foreign media, had set alarm bells ringing across Europe. The Portuguese were said to be fearful that holiday resorts would become dumping-grounds for drug tourists. Some conservative politicians denounced the decriminalisation as “pure lunacy”. Plane-loads of foreign students would head for the Algarve to smoke marijuana, predicted Paulo Portas, leader of the People’s Party. Portugal, he said, was offering “sun, beaches and any drug you like.”

Yet after all the furore, the drug law was largely forgotten by the international and Portuguese press—until earlier this year, when the Cato Institute, a libertarian American think-tank, published a study of the new policy by a lawyer, Glenn Greenwald.* In contrast to the dire consequences that critics predicted, he concluded that “none of the nightmare scenarios” initially painted, “from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for ‘drug tourists’, has occurred.”

Mr Greenwald claims that the data show that “decriminalisation has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal”, which “in numerous categories are now among the lowest in the European Union”. This came after some rises in the 1990s, before decriminalisation. The figures reveal little evidence of drug tourism: 95% of those cited for drug misdemeanours since 2001 have been Portuguese. The level of drug trafficking, measured by numbers convicted, has also declined. And the incidence of other drug-related problems, including sexually transmitted diseases and deaths from drug overdoses, has “decreased dramatically”.

There are widespread misconceptions about the Portuguese approach. “It is important not to confuse decriminalisation with depenalisation or legalisation,” comments Brendan Hughes of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which is, coincidentally, based in Lisbon. “Drug use remains illegal in Portugal, and anyone in possession will be stopped by the police, have the drugs confiscated and be sent before a commission.”

Nor is it uncommon in Europe to make drug use an administrative offence rather than a criminal one (putting it in the same category as not wearing a seat belt, say). What is unique, according to Mr Hughes, is that offenders in Portugal are sent to specialist “dissuasion commissions” run by the government, rather than into the judicial system. “In Portugal,” he says, “the health aspect [of the government’s response to drugs] has gone mainstream.”

The aim of the dissuasion commissions, which are made up of panels of two or three psychiatrists, social workers and legal advisers, is to encourage addicts to undergo treatment and to stop recreational users falling into addiction. They have the power to impose community work and even fines, but punishment is not their main aim. The police turn some 7,500 people a year over to the commissions. But nobody carrying anything considered to be less than a ten-day personal supply of drugs can be arrested, sentenced to jail or given a criminal record.

Officials believe that, by lifting fears of prosecution, the policy has encouraged addicts to seek treatment. This bears out their view that criminal sanctions are not the best answer. “Before decriminalisation, addicts were afraid to seek treatment because they feared they would be denounced to the police and arrested,” says Manuel Cardoso, deputy director of the Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Portugal’s main drugs-prevention and drugs-policy agency. “Now they know they will be treated as patients with a problem and not stigmatised as criminals.”

The number of addicts registered in drug-substitution programmes has risen from 6,000 in 1999 to over 24,000 in 2008, reflecting a big rise in treatment (but not in drug use). Between 2001 and 2007 the number of Portuguese who say they have taken heroin at least once in their lives increased from just 1% to 1.1%. For most other drugs, the figures have fallen: Portugal has one of Europe’s lowest lifetime usage rates for cannabis. And most notably, heroin and other drug abuse has decreased among vulnerable younger age-groups, according to Mr Cardoso.

The share of heroin users who inject the drug has also fallen, from 45% before decriminalisation to 17% now, he says, because the new law has facilitated treatment and harm-reduction programmes. Drug addicts now account for only 20% of Portugal’s HIV cases, down from 56% before. “We no longer have to work under the paradox that exists in many countries of providing support and medical care to people the law considers criminals.”

“Proving a causal link between Portugal’s decriminalisation measures and any changes in drug-use patterns is virtually impossible in scientific terms,” concludes Mr Hughes. “But anyone looking at the statistics can see that drug consumption in 2001 was relatively low in European terms, and that it remains so. The apocalypse hasn’t happened
.”
 
Last edited:
papasmerf said:
I am glad you added more than just the racist crap.

The breathalyzer is accepted in all courts in the US as a functional test and refusal to take the test is an automatic suspension of driving privileges.
And if they're like our breathalysers they are not administered roadside like your hoped-for field test, but back at the station. Yet somehow we manage to convict drunk drivers. As we did before breathalysers.

Glad you think racism is crap, sorry uou didn't like the illustration. Indulging your prejudices by requiring tests for others your own favourites can't meet is pretty crappy too.
 
oldjones said:
And if they're like our breathalysers they are not administered roadside like your hoped-for field test, but back at the station. Yet somehow we manage to convict drunk drivers. As we did before breathalysers.

Sorry you think racism is crap. Indulging your prejudices by requiring tests for others your own favourites can't meet is pretty crappy too.

Bring up fifty year old stuff is petty when you are talking about laws today.


You are trying to bring a parallel between drugs and racism
 
No, I'm trying to make a parallel between bad—disgustingly bad—thinking about race and policy and bad thinking about drugs and policy.

Bad thinking is eternal, there was as much of it fifty years ago as today. And it's just as hard today as it was then to get people to realize they made up their minds based on bad thinking, and now they're using more bad thinking to hang onto those bad pre-judgements.

If we just gotta have a reliable 'field test' for impaired levels of THC where is the one for alcohol? Put another way: If we're managing w/o an alcohol field test why can't we manage w/o a THC one the same way?
 
Why not make driving a car illegal?

It's caused more deaths than smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol, skydiving, AIDS and snake handling TOTALLED! :eek:
 
oldjones said:
No, I'm trying to make a parallel between bad—disgustingly bad—thinking about race and policy and bad thinking about drugs and policy.

Bad thinking is eternal, there was as much of it fifty years ago as today. And it's just as hard today as it was then to get people to realize they made up their minds based on bad thinking, and now they're using more bad thinking to hang onto those bad pre-judgements.

If we just gotta have a reliable 'field test' for impaired levels of THC where is the one for alcohol? Put another way: If we're managing w/o an alcohol field test why can't we manage w/o a THC one the same way?

Party on oldjones dude
 
vsailor said:
Man, I've got the munchies again.

Ha ha ha......look what I found...."shaking sound".

A box of mac & cheese.....we just HAVE to make this.
 
I have been meaning to post in this thread but somehow every time I come to terb I forget....
 
oldjones said:
In 1930 as Roosevelt reorganized (or disorganized) federal government and law enforcement, the Bureau of Prohibition was moved into the young FBI. This wasn't to the liking of Hoover because liquor (like drugs today) enforcement was tainted and corrupt, nor did it please the assistant commisioner of the B of P, Harry Anslinger.

He managed to finagle his own agency, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and Hoover managed to get the Prohibition Bureau moved out again to become BATF.

With repeal obviously on the horizon—many prominent pols had campaigned for it in '28 and it came in '33 no one wanted the sinking ship.
True, however, I really didn't believe that TERB wanted the whole "blow by blow". I thought the synopsis sufficient, and the fact remains that most Bureau of Prohibition agents became part of ATF.
 
I personally think, being high is more safe than being drunk!
Well at least i won't wake up the next moring with bumps and bruises...
 
I think we should legalize it because....i frakkin enjoy it.

Also, if it was legalized and sold by the government and taxed (to which they always do), it would probably end Canada's deficit. :p

They can sell it in either the beer store or the LCBO. I can just see it now, can i get a 2-4 of canadian and a half z to go with that. lol

Alright, off to smoke another one.
 
I think a lot of drinkers would switch completely if it becomes legal.
No more empties to deal with, less pissing in the alleys after closing time - a real cultural paradigm shift!
 
Legalize and tax the hell out of it.
 
Interesting to see votes running five to one for legalization. The poll should have included a decriminalization option. Wonder how that would split the vote. Seems like the TERB demographic is more weed friendly than the man in the street.
 
I love it, especially since I got my vaporizer.. Just wish I had a more reliable supply. Legalizing it would make me happy atleast. It would also give one less thing to argue for people who drink alcohol lots but think MJ is all bad.