sda2.jpg

November 27, 2012

The Emerald City's New High

FoggySeattle_Marijuana.jpg

Related: Steven Crowder talks with some potheads in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Posted by Robert at November 27, 2012 3:00 PM
Comments

If the federal government allows Washington to proceed with its social experiment, retail marijuana sales in the state could top $1 billion a year, according to the state’s Office of Financial Management, which studied impacts of I-502 before the Nov. 6 election.
...
The Liquor Control Board is at least a year away from handing down the rules that will define the new industry...

What do you think the chances are that a bunch of friends and family members of the washington state liquor control board are about to make a pant load of cash? I think potheads in Washington are going to be pining for the good old days when pot was illegal pretty soon.

Posted by: james at November 27, 2012 3:44 PM

I'm going to the Seattle area this weekend. I'll have to watch out for stoned drivers. Along with all the other whackos on the I-5. It's dangerous out there.

Posted by: Mike in White Rock at November 27, 2012 3:47 PM

I sure hope they will all be paying their carbon credits for all that CO2.And james,you are so right.When AB privatized,if you couldn't prove you had donated mucho moola,or were a friend of CINO gubermint,you didn't get a store.10% of the stores here are owned/operated by whites,the rest Muslims.Yes, they will tolerate booze as long as they are making a buck on it!

Posted by: Justthinkin at November 27, 2012 3:50 PM

Gays, potheads, artists - all these people need government control in their lives to feel legitimate. Losers.

Posted by: Philanthropist at November 27, 2012 4:04 PM

Mike in White Rock:

Based on the driving habits of those in Metro Vancouver, I think that Pot-Impaired Driving is the norm here. :-(

Posted by: Robert W. (Vancouver) at November 27, 2012 4:07 PM

With apologies for not watching the all-too-predictable video, will Crowder follow up with a interview of winos on skid row with a view to determining if the de-criminalization of alcohol was a bad idea.

And how about a follow up video with the friends and family of that brave female Mexican mayor who just got murdered for pushing back against the drug lords with a view to determining the effectiveness of the so-called War on Drugs?

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at November 27, 2012 4:09 PM

Haven't seen any harm incurred in my social circles from recreational MJ use. Anecdotal for sure, but I was a teenager in the 70's and many still smoke it.
Most of the danger comes from being forced to access it through the same folks who occupy the underbelly of society.

Posted by: Doowleb at November 27, 2012 4:29 PM

What does it make you if you insist that Gubment criminalize marijuana while at the same time advocate for more individual freedom and a smaller, less intrusive government?

Posted by: richfisher at November 27, 2012 4:48 PM

Wait until they find out its a weed and grows everywhere and anywhere. Tuff to tax homegrown.

Posted by: Reverend Ken at November 27, 2012 5:10 PM

Hey doowleb, wait another decade and come back and tell us how many of your friends are dead from cancer.

Posted by: james at November 27, 2012 5:19 PM

Well, given Steve's information, we should also make alcohol, prescription drugs, rock climbing, big gulps illegal since they all can cause great harm.

GM

Posted by: Gary Marshall at November 27, 2012 5:25 PM

The truth is that MJ is largely harmless but prohibition kills.

WA and CO have struck a body blow against the War on Drugs. The feds will try to fight back but they are out of money. Uruguay also partially legalized. We are well into the beginning of the end now if Canada would get a federal government with some sane policies in this arena.

Posted by: LAS at November 27, 2012 5:41 PM

I couldn't give a rat's *ss about the legalization of marijuana. If you want to smoke the stuff, go nuts.

However, that being said .... I would expect that marijuana smokers be subject to the same restrictions, demonization and bullying that is the norm for tobacco users.

Posted by: biffjr. at November 27, 2012 5:42 PM

A) Psychiatry is not a science, it's a psuedo science.
B) even if alcohol is found in a dead vehicle driver's body it does not prove that the alcohol was the cause of the accident.
Say it together kiddies: Correlation Does Not Prove Causation.

As an addendum, does anyone remember Canadian Ross Rebagliati was disqualified from receiving his Gold Medal in snowboarding at the XVIII Olympic Winter Games in Nagano Japan for smoking marijuana because the Americans claimed it was a performance enhancing drug.
Subsequently, the Americans had a holy-shit-what-are-we-saying moment and Rebagliati had his medal restored.

Posted by: Oz at November 27, 2012 5:50 PM

LAS, it won't happen because as you see above the Right is totally schizophrenic on the issue. Too many want small government, less regulation, yadda, yadda, But they also want absolute bans on all kinds of things like pot. That's where they join ranks with the leftist ban-everything progressives.

At some point the Right is going to have to decide whether or not it believes in the full responsibility of the individual. Until it does, it's going to remain captive of the lefist collectivist morons.

Of course prohibition kills. It puts BC's largest cash crop exclusively into the hands of criminals. The War on Drugs has reduced the supply and the availability not one iota. And in return for thousands of dead all it has achieved is to drive up the price and hence the crime rate. And artificially create a massive public health problem.

And as for harming others, we punish drunk drivers; there's no reason we can't punish pothead drivers.

Posted by: cgh at November 27, 2012 5:53 PM

The thread graphic is somewhat misleading too:
I'd say that the consumption of MJ the day after it's "legalized" will be the same as the day before. Put another way, I doubt that anyone who wanted to smoke pot has demured due to this dumb-ass-law.

And LAS is certainly right: Prohibition kills: it's 50,000 now in Mexico, roughly the same as US deaths in the dumb-ass Vietnam war. And all those wasted lives in prison at enormous public expense for this dumb-ass victim-less crime.

For the record I take no drugs except for two cupsa coffee first thing in the morning.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at November 27, 2012 5:54 PM

Legalize it all. Government has no business protecting organized crime with stupid, utterly useless, laws.

Posted by: djb at November 27, 2012 6:11 PM

Ironic that the same folks who claim owning a firearm should be free from regulation also want to jail folks for owning a plant.

Posted by: TrueNorthist at November 27, 2012 6:15 PM

Er, james, if doowleb's friends were smoking pot in the 70's, wouldn't many of them be dead of cancer in 10 years time anyway, no matter what they did?

Not advocating for pot here, just for a realistic appreciation of human frailty.

Posted by: ebt at November 27, 2012 6:47 PM

Canada will never, ever legalize marijuana as long as the US continues it's war or drugs. It would drive a huge wedge between our relations with them.
No matter where one stands on this issue, it isn't going to happen any time soon.

Posted by: The original Rick at November 27, 2012 6:48 PM

I would and have hired pot heads over boozers any day of the week. It is relatively harmless and does little in the way of driving impairment. Ever watch potheads play vid games? MJ laws do nothing but ruin peoples lives with a criminal record if caught. It is the biggest sham going these days.
Tax it, regulate it and get on with it I says.

Posted by: Glenn at November 27, 2012 7:01 PM

TrueNorthist at November 27, 2012 6:15 PM

"Ironic that the same folks who claim owning a firearm should be free from regulation also want to jail folks for owning a plant."

Yeah I noticed that...the same element that seeks "gunlaws" and "gun-bans", actively support legalizing not just MJ but most recreational drugs.

Me I recall taking an indifferent attitude, until one day Charles was in the wire, and I saw one of the cool guys, smoking a joint feeding a 81mm mortar...as he dropped the round down the barrel....the wrong way. Talk about yer bein' overtaken on the road to Damascus....Ya see I wuz that sorry SOB, who had to write all them letters to the nexta kin.......

An visiting acquaintance tried to light up a joint at chez moi...one day....told him I would shove it up his .... so far he would have to set his nose on fire to light it.

Yeah I know that's not too original...but it seemed appropriate.

Yeah I'm sorta biased....

Posted by: sasquatch at November 27, 2012 7:06 PM

sasquatch,
Thanks for bringing a dose of reality to the conversation.

Posted by: Chris in Texas at November 27, 2012 7:27 PM

Hilarious Kate. Its like living in this trailer park. At 17:00 the blue smoke rises all over.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at November 27, 2012 7:30 PM

@ chg: well said. You are correct the right and theory are hard to tell apart sometimes.

@ Sasquatch: yeah it's a shame. I treat trauma daily due to misuse of alcohol sometimes involving innocent people due to stupidity and misuse by others. I have to tell families the bad news. I don't go raging on people who drink wine at Christmas dinner or at a friends BBQ. You just have to deal with the problem: some people are too stupid or too irresponsible to share this planet with and nothing seems to help. But either I believe in freedom or I don't.

Posted by: langmann at November 27, 2012 7:31 PM

I can see a society coming with many people around us similar to that professor in the video.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at November 27, 2012 7:37 PM

Sasquatch....good comment. I recall investigating the murder of a 81 year lady in Alberta who was stabbed 187 times by a punk who was zoned out on pot and was in a killing frenzy. Apparently he didn't get the memo that pot supposedly caused you to become "mellow"...

Posted by: Bruce at November 27, 2012 7:38 PM

@ cgh : You are correct, the left and right are hard to tell apart sometimes. As for the war on drugs, its killing people and causing part of the problem.

(Sorry my phone's spellcheck went ape, but I think I've now discovered why ok sounds so messed up.)

Posted by: langmann at November 27, 2012 7:47 PM

Most of the danger comes from being forced to access it through the same folks who occupy the underbelly of society.

Sounds like you have an addiction problem if you're forced to access it anywhere.

Posted by: stradivarious at November 27, 2012 8:13 PM

Ironic that the same folks who claim owning a firearm should be free from regulation also want to jail folks for owning a plant.

Ironic that the same folks who claim pot should be legalized also want to jail folks for selling big gulps.( ok maybe not jail but you know what I mean )

and calling pot a plant is like saying vodka is simply a potatoe

" but but, officer I was simply driving while under the influence of potatoes! yes it was 26 ounces of it but it is only a potatoe!"

Posted by: Canadian Friend at November 27, 2012 8:22 PM

And to add to what sasquatch said, I do not think I would want that former history teacher packing my chute, even between joints.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at November 27, 2012 8:45 PM

Well, in principle, I tend to side with the "legalize it" crowd. But as an important issue, it barely makes the needle quiver on my "give-a-shit" meter.

And that tends to make me suspicious of those people who seem to think it's an issue of all-consuming importance.

Posted by: gordinkneehill at November 27, 2012 8:59 PM

No, cancer takes time to develop. Most smokers die of lung cancer in their 60s etc. Some people get it earlier than others. Give it time and you'll start seeing all these pot head losers croaking.

As for legalizing marijuana if your argument is that "it does not harm you" that is not true. If your argument is that people do it anyway that doesn't wash either since people still do all kinds of illegal things including drunk driving etc. No one's in a hurry to legalize that are they?

The facts are drugs are harmful and should remain illegal and no, this does not contradict conservatism.

Posted by: james at November 27, 2012 9:34 PM

@ james: Ban alcohol then.

Posted by: langmann at November 27, 2012 9:56 PM

Right now in BC cannabis is essentially legal. Those people who are going to smoke it already are doing so. In Vancouver people are very open about smoking cannabis but in the interior it's taken some of my patients 4 years to decide they trust me enough to let me know they've been using it for treating their arthritis pain for decades. Seems that use in the interior is just as high as it is in Vancouver, just that people are a lot more cautious about it.

IMHO, the war on some drugs is far more destructive than cannabis will ever be. The WOsD has resulted in a steady increase in totalitarianism with abuse of laws regarding "proceeds of crime", having to explain why one would want to withdraw more than $10 K in cash from the bank, etc. Either one believes in freedom and the consequences that come with freedom or one is responsible for creating a dictatorship.

Potheads are annoying but then so are drunks. I've been looking for the psychotic effects in teenagers that are supposed to be a consequence of early cannabis use for years now and haven't found a single case - every psychotic teenager I've seen has also been heavily into methamphetamine, cocaine and often whatever other drugs they can find. Alcohol is the number one problem drug that I deal with on a daily basis and there are weeks when I treat 4-5 patients with hepatic encephalopathy and cirrhosis at the hospital. These are conditions that are directly as a result of alcohol excess. Similarly, the COPD patients that I see are there as a result of utilizing unsafe forms of nicotine administration. The government has a huge role to play in this problem as they haven't allowed the tobacco companies to market safe cigarettes which would basically be nicotine vaporizers as nicotine alone is far safer than pyrolized tobacco.

Given a choice between living in a nanny state where the government decides what people can put into their bodies "for their own safety" or in a state where people are allowed to make their own decisions about what drugs they chose to ingest, I'll choose the latter. Also, I don't want the government telling me whether or not I can walk around armed as I think that should be my decision, not theirs.

Conservatives need to decide if they're in favor of a totalitarian state or individual responsibility. Right now the WOsD's has been a very large reason for the countries descent into totalitarianism.

Posted by: Loki at November 27, 2012 10:03 PM

The best way to tax pot use is to put a really "high" tax on Cheetos, chips, burgers, ice cream.............I think you get it.

I'm not in favor of lowering the legal age for drinking alcohol and all we reeeeeally need is for more stoned and drunk kids behind the wheel.

Having said that - there are so few busts anymore of kids in posession of a few grams of weed that if they did legalize having a small amount - you have to think that it may not make that big a difference one way or the other.

Still - I'm thinking to err on the side of caution.

Hey!!!! come on. man! Don't Bogart the roach!!!

Posted by: a different bob at November 27, 2012 10:06 PM

I can see a society coming with many people around us similar to that professor in the video.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak)

Yeah? What you been smoking, komrade?

Posted by: phil at November 27, 2012 10:08 PM

Well said Loki. Most of my trauma patients - due to alcohol.

In addition I am tired of paying police officers to manage these retards like they are their parents. People have the option to either make something of themselves or blow their minds on drugs. If that's their calling so be it. Trying to solve it by paying to store them in jail for thousands of dollars a year is simply a waste of money and effort.

More insidious is what I saw going on in the US where police departments began funding themselves with proceeds of drug crime money until it became a business of its own. Entire paramilitary forces funded by the drugcrime industry.

Conservatives absolutely need to decide if they're in favor of a totalitarian state or individual responsibility. Right now I have a hard time telling the difference between the lefties and the right.

Posted by: langmann at November 27, 2012 10:11 PM

Libertarians need to get it into their thick heads that conservatives are NOT your ideological allies. We tolerate you in our big tent (although, I'm having second thoughts on that) because of the economic stuff, but we see no contradiction in banning certain drugs but not guns. Or marijuana but not alcohol. We don't accept the same premise of absolute freedom that libertarians do. You think we're being hypocritical? Who gives a shit? Why do we have to live with your premises?

Posted by: David at November 27, 2012 10:40 PM

Langmann, Loki, I'm reminded of the fact that what you are saying is not new. You folks in the front lines of public health have been saying this for decades. So time to cut to the chase; given the billions of dollars wasted and tens of thousands of lives lost, how long will it be before it is acknowledged openly that this utterly insane prohibition policy has failed in every way it's possible to fail?

David, I dont' give a rat's ass if you are a hypocrite. That's your problem. My problem is that your hypocritical prohibitionism has posed utterly insane costs and loss of life on the rest of society. I'm having to live with YOUR premise. SoCons need to get it through their thick heads that their attempts to enforce their personal morality on the rest of society is as dead and obsolete as the dinosaurs.

You were stupidly wrong in the 1930s with alcohol prohibitionism and you're stupidly wrong today.

And who said libertarians believe in unlimited freedom? That's called anarchy, not a libertarian society, and it has nothing to do with personal responsibility.

Posted by: cgh at November 27, 2012 10:58 PM

@ cgh: Agreed.

Conservatives like David may also wish to consider that their hypocritical beliefs invalidate their arguments especially with the younger generation. Arguing against gay marriage for instance, makes their arguments about gun rights look rediculous.

If you use drugs, get into a car, and hurt someone, my sentence for you is a harsh one - much harsher than the sentences given out these days. Just because I allow people the freedom to use drugs doesn't mean I absolve them of responsibility for their actions. That is libertarianism.

Posted by: langmann at November 27, 2012 11:15 PM

"The WOsD has resulted in a steady increase in totalitarianism"
Really and where is that? I would be interested in knowing how enforcing the law equals totalitarianism.
"every psychotic teenager I've seen has also been heavily into methamphetamine, cocaine and often whatever other drugs they can find"
That sounds like an addiction issue so how will increasing access to things that give rise to addiction help our youth over the long haul?

Posted by: nold at November 27, 2012 11:17 PM

I got an early education in the effect of prolonged marijuana use as a young man working on the rail gang, where the use of marijuana and hashish was endemic.

Not only did it make it dangerous as hell being around people who were operating heavy equipment, (I was nearly killed by a perpetually buzzed speedswing operator [http://www.gopettibone.com/speed-swing/]), it makes you stupid.

There was a guy on the crew who had spent the past two years finishing the last year of his Mathematics degree.

Every few days, he would haul out his calculus books and spread them out on his bunk, his hands poking helplessly at them like small, cautious animals. After an hour or so, he'd put them all away with a sigh, and light up a joint.

At one point he simply started to cry. I think it was at that point that he realized he had doomed himself to a lifetime of swinging a hammer.

I don't care what anyone says about the "smart guy they know who smokes it regularly" with no ill effects. Marijuana makes you stupid. Some people have a shorter trajectory and fewer IQ points to spare, but it has more or less the same effect on everyone.

Posted by: Christopher Ivey at November 27, 2012 11:18 PM

Well, I'd say that somebody needs to have a "rubber hits the road" moment and put forward an actual, er, reform model, based on sound economic principles.

I agree that the current policy arrangements are a pathetic failure, from whichever angle. Nevertheless, the old (ROFWLKITALMFAO; I first heard it in high school over thirty years ago), "Hey, let's take it from a cost-centre and turn it into a profit centre for the government!" argument sounds very much like more of the same Liberal desperation that has gripped that Party for most of these past 73 years (with the singular exception of PET's years) and which seem destined to continue well into the future.

My preliminary position would be, "legalize unconditionally, with legislation to revert to previous, in five years' time unless renewed" -- a sort of reverse Notwithstanding Clause position. Legalize, regulate and tax is not a position that I could even remotely support for many practical reasons, the most important of which is this: if you are truly want less government, the first thing you must do is starve it.

So, let's kick it around, and see what we come up with...

Posted by: David Southam at November 27, 2012 11:24 PM

james:

I worked in a rehab centre in the early 80`s. Pot kills, trust me. An addiction to pot is as bad as booze. Politicians and doctors tend to differ opinions on that one.

I saw a kid who was a rigger come in, he had gotten a bad batch that was most likely laced with a poison. He dried up, went vack to work. A few months later he died from a fall. Who knows?

Posted by: Plainzdrifter at November 27, 2012 11:40 PM

David, we legalized alcohol. Pot and the rest of the chemical pharmocoepia don't pose significantly different problems. I suspect however you are right. Unconditional decriminalization is probably the place where we have to end up. The desired endpoint is not a huge new source of government revenue; the desired endpoint is the end of the gigantic crime wave and public health problem associated with prohibition.

I do have one large caveat to all this. Being on pot or any narcotic is not a defense against having committed some other crime against person or property. Potheads behind the wheel are just as liable for consequences as drunks.

And drug use has to be a permissible reason for employers to decline applicants. I want neither boozers nor potheads in the office.

The end of prohibition in the 1930s did not produce more alcoholics. Since there's universal access to narcotics today, the end of prohibition will not necessarily give rise to a huge increase in potheads either.

It's first and foremost a lifestyle choice.

Christopher: "Marijuana makes you stupid. Some people have a shorter trajectory and fewer IQ points to spare, but it has more or less the same effect on everyone."

I don't care. If people choose to destroy their lives, whether it be from booze, pot or crack cocaine, that's their business. There's no sentimentality in me about this, and I've had to deal with enough alcoholics in my time. If they choose to inflict such adverse consequences on themselves, let them.

Posted by: cgh at November 27, 2012 11:59 PM

As Langmann noted, most of the trauma he sees as a physician is due to alcohol. Ask any physician who works in a hospital about the role of alcohol in various types of trauma. It's huge and many people get quite stupid on alcohol. Alcohol causes permanent brain damage and I've lost track of the number of patients with Korsakoff's syndrome that I've seen over the years. Every time I do a stint at the hospital I notice my alcohol intake dropping afterwards.

OTOH, alcohol is a great social lubricant, beer is a source of germ free water and there's nothing quite like going out and having a few beers with ones friends. The idea is to do things in moderation which one gets through experience; if you're staggering drunk and vomiting at age 17 that's normal but a 50 year old doing the same thing has a serious problem.

Langmann has also pointed out the hypocrisy of US police departments who enrich themselves with "proceeds of crime" - no different than any organized group of criminals; just backed by the government. What the WOsD's has done is to increase corruption in government to a degree never before seen. Alcohol prohibition did the same thing and vestiges of this are still seen in cities like Chicago.

For every example people have given of the stoned people who were dangerous on the job, I can probably provide 10 examples of people who were equally dangerous while drunk. My experience has been that stupid people are especially susceptible to the effects of psychoactive drugs whereas those who are more intelligent are able to handle them better. When I was in university there were many grad students who were essentially in a perpetual stone and functioning very well. This wasn't in a humanities department, it was in hard sciences.

cgh, I agree with you that we need total decriminalization and NO government involvement in the process aside from very harsh penalties for people mis-representing what drugs they are selling. Also, penalties for driving while drunk/stoned and causing injury or death should be far harsher. I don't believe in randomly checking people who are driving if they've ingested various drugs as they might be more proficient drivers on the drug combination they've taken. Performance testing is the key although this would likely take many elderly drivers off the road for being impaired considering how slow their reactions have become.

I don't know why Libertarians continue to get confused with anarchists. Libertarians believe in freedom and responsibility. People who are going to do something stupid will do so regardless of what laws are in place to prevent it. Thus, why penalize the responsible with totalitarian legislation?

Posted by: Loki at November 28, 2012 12:43 AM

Lots of research trial and error and dosage of based person age need to done before jump to conclusion.
but everything can happend

Marijuana is a herb
and we can buy all kind of Herbal tea such as Chineese tea and other tea in market

In result
Can made marijuana tea bag as well

by add other chemical to cut the person not get high or feel sleepy and do not change MIND of person and

only tea usually is used as relaxation like other herbal tea

Main problem with marijuana is they affect mind and affect not reasonable act and thought emotional attached and conclusion is not make sense

how do you want to fix this part then!
need lots of research about it. and study side affect in different age and health of person

referemce:

http://reliablerelief.org/tea_bags.html

http://www.thestonerscookbook.com/recipe.php/recipe/marijuana-tea-weed-tea

http://forum.grasscity.com/incredible-edible-herb/990421-cannabis-tea-worth-making.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
------

More reference:

wikipedia search for

Cannabis

and cannabis_(drug)
------

search enginee for google:

Marijina and/or Marijuana tea bags and/or
herbal Marijuana tea bags and/or herbal magic and/or herbal tea magic and/or herbal tea and/or cure for cancer and help brain cell get smarter
------------------------

google search for all meaning of MIND and affect of Marigina can affect MIND

mariguan differnct with other herbal

Posted by: i at November 28, 2012 1:24 AM

Loki and Langmann make good points; they're on the 'front lines' so-to-speak, and their experience carries credibility.

Of course drugs have NO place at work, especially in a hazardous trade, and people who cite examples of drug related workplace accidents, are only supporting that point.

Alcohol related workplace accidents are just as bad, and only a fool would think that bringing back prohibition would stop them.

The biggest gain with making pot legal would be taking it out of the criminal drug world. Unfortunately a lot of criminals are getting rich from pot and they will continue to resist legalization by continuing to fund politicians seeking to keep it prohibited.

Follow the money.

Posted by: north_of_60 at November 28, 2012 2:45 AM

Marijuana makes you stupid.

Likely part of the reason we have left wing governments. Add up the cost of that...

Posted by: Stradivarius at November 28, 2012 4:03 AM

Loki: "I don't know why Libertarians continue to get confused with anarchists."

Because SoCons believe that personal responsibility doesn't exist except where it is enforced?

Because inside every SoCon is a nasty little totalitarian just itching to get out? ;)

Posted by: cgh at November 28, 2012 7:41 AM

to·tal·i·tar·i·an (t -t l -târ - n). adj. Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control ...
Yes right; enforcing the current prohibition is totalitarian. Words like denier and totalitarian tend to lose their original meaning when used in an exaggerated way. People who escaped totalitarianism know what it is and it's not our current drug laws.

Posted by: nold at November 28, 2012 8:10 AM

north @ 2:45 and nold @ 8:10, well said.

I do not need either drunks or stoned on my machines.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at November 28, 2012 9:14 AM

Watched the video. Sheesh! And all this time I thought the Cheech and Chong skit was just humour. Who knew?

Posted by: Olde Spice at November 28, 2012 10:29 AM

@cgh
The end of prohibition in the 1930s did not produce more alcoholics.

Did Roe v. Wade lead to more abortions?
(Not trying to argue. Trying to understand your position.)

@ David S.
if you are truly want less government, the first thing you must do is starve it.
Very true.

A tax on MJ. Hmmm. Who are the libertarians who believe in levying a new tax?

@Loki
The WOsD has resulted in a steady increase in totalitarianism ...
Methinks GWoT is a bigger culprit.
.......

Are we forgetting another approach? As Nancy Reagan said: 'Just say no', non, nein, nyet ...'

Posted by: Rizwan at November 28, 2012 10:53 AM

Rizwan:
Did Roe v. Wade lead to more abortions?

Statistically yes, in reality no. Abortions rose statistically in the United States because of the shutdown of backstreet abortionists which were never captured in the official numbers. More specifically, when Canada's abortion law was overthrown by a court decision the rate did not rise.

In the 1930s, when prohibition ended, the rate of alcoholism did not significantly increase.

Posted by: cgh at November 28, 2012 11:02 AM

I have fired several employees that were intoxicated at work. All except one were drunk or badly hung-over. I wouldn't have even known about the guy smoking MJ at work if it weren't for one of my apprentices accidentally ratting him out which allowed me to catch him at it. Still, he was wasted and the rules are clear. I can say with some confidence that probably all of my current staff use either alcohol or MJ but they manage to keep it restricted to their own time and do not arrive at work smelling like a brewery or a grow-op. I have noticed that the problem is greater among guys over 30, with the under 30 group having better self-control. Trouble is virtually every under 30 I hire needs extensive training for stuff he supposedly was taught in school, but I digress...

Sasquatch, "Yeah I noticed that...the same element that seeks "gunlaws" and "gun-bans", actively support legalizing not just MJ but most recreational drugs."

The left doesn't care whether they are consistent about anything. It's called relativism and it's endemic, which is why their systems always fall apart so spectacularly. Trudeau is currently reaping the results of his relativism and yet he still will not learn from his mistake. Fortunately for you he wasn't sent over to load mortars.

"I saw one of the cool guys, smoking a joint feeding a 81mm mortar...as he dropped the round down the barrel....the wrong way."

They allow MJ use in the service? Really? God help us.

Posted by: TrueNorthist at November 28, 2012 11:40 AM

Too much dependcy to drug and change mind metabolim energy and nutition intake and shape and behaviour is big treat to human being
need regulation to control that
for every drug or medication or tablet under counter too in general
set a goal to change their mind and behaviour

so many teen young and in early adulthood they act weired due to mental illness or start symptoms
toward drug addiction and later their mind and the way they are thinking can be changed too.

they need research to help them before it is too late

Criminal behaviour in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drops sharply when they take stimulant drugs

such as
RITALIN tablet
(check in wikipedia about side affect )

to help them control their impulses, a new study said.

http://www.thestar.com/living/health/article/1293492--adhd-medication-could-help-cut-crime-study-says


=====================

for stop shaky hand and body and person who is hyper and stop drug addiction

use Propranolol 20 mg
check in wikipedia about side affect

DANGER NOTE: can not use Propranolol with OCD medication together usually use it by itself. with 20 mg tablet

Medical uses

Propranolol is indicated for the management of anger and anxiety various conditions including:
Hypertension
Post-traumatic stress disorder
Shaky hands
Hyperhidrosis
Calming down individuals with phobias via sedative effects
Performance anxiety
Control of tachycardia/tremor associated with anxiety, hyperthyroidism or lithium therapy.
Migraine prophylaxis
Cluster headaches prophylaxis
Tension headache (Off label use)
Antipsychotic-induced akathisia,
Aggressive behavior of patients with brain injuries[8]
Thyrotoxicosis via deiodinase inhibition
Primary exertional headache
and evidence is increasing that the most frequently used beta-blockers at usual doses carry an unacceptable risk of provoking type 2 diabetes.

================

Posted by: so at November 28, 2012 11:52 AM

pscypatic disorder of using drugs can affect long term to brain cells as well will caused behvaiour changed too.

100 mg per day of Quetiapine (Seroquel) -- used for psychotic disorder for sever mental illness such as delusion disorder
(check in wikipedia about side affect )
===================

Fluoxetine 20 mg is good too but there is side affect -- Used for OCD-
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

(check in wikipedia about side affect )

It does not make you sleepy and reduce repeated like wash hand or do repeated illegal break the law knowingly that break law lead them to detention but they can not stop themselves.

can caused stomac pain need to use after food and take digestion pill with too can help as well.
give more energy boost and reduce weight as well.

==============

sertraline (Zoloft), for Post traumatic stress disorder -- PTSD
(check in wikipedia about side affect )

=========
If anybody try to cut drug addication and anger managment and hyper emotionally attached to gang freindly need to do some reasonable solution to it

most addiction start from early youth or teenager time

they may need causiously used some medication by supervising psychetric doctor
===============
reduce medication or increase medication is very danger in brain MIND too
Mix two or three medication with even harbal and vitamin can be very dangerous and has side affect

start one medication at a time and every month can change if not working to other trail or error to find right medication and dosage with consider age and internal health of each person such as liver hormone and glands and too much rash can be link with PTSD too to help liver problem take 1000 mg of omaga 3 check lable of vitamin that not have too much oil in eacn tablet too

Posted by: so at November 28, 2012 11:55 AM

My usual words. If we could tolerate allowing druggies and their kids to die in the streets and had street sweepers that would scrub them up and take them to the landfill - great - toke away. People who destroy their own and their family's lives come looking to me to buy their drugs and feed and clothe them. I do have an interest in their useless lives.

Posted by: Scar at November 28, 2012 11:56 AM

Love the photo. Seattle obviously doesn't allow tall buildings anywhere near the Space Needle. I think the Husky Tower (old name - I know) in Calgary is taller but is dwarfed by the buildings around it.

Posted by: Scar at November 28, 2012 12:01 PM

Pot kills, trust me. An addiction to pot is as bad as booze.

Lies.

A tax on MJ. Hmmm. Who are the libertarians who believe in levying a new tax?

I'll take it over throwing people in jail and giving cops an infinite revenue stream.

This thread has been pretty encouraging to read.

Posted by: LAS at November 28, 2012 12:06 PM

If we could tolerate allowing druggies and their kids to die in the streets and had street sweepers that would scrub them up and take them to the landfill - great - toke away.

Absolutely ridiculous.
Just like those who drink a beer will surely be found shortly living under a bridge swilling rubbing alcohol.

If you can't differentiate between recreational pot smokers and needle tracked heroin addicts, you should seek help. Oh, and put down that copy of 'Reefer Madness' you've been clutching.

Posted by: doowleb at November 28, 2012 12:17 PM

Oh, I almost forgot.

Loki, I had tried quitting smoking so many times I was known as the worlds greatest quitter. Then I found e-cigs and kicked the cigs immediately and completely. Coming up on one year without a single cigarette. My GP is amazed at how well it worked and is watching me like a lab rat these days. He wasn't very keen when I told him I was going to try e-cigs but has come around since.

Posted by: TrueNorthist at November 28, 2012 12:18 PM

doowleb "If you can't differentiate between recreational pot smokers and needle tracked heroin addicts, you should seek help. Oh, and put down that copy of 'Reefer Madness' you've been clutching."

No - no difference. The belief that every mind altering substance except weeds destroys lives indicates perhaps a excess of indulgence. And who are those idiots who think that organized crime is going to give up the business to allow for big government profits. Have another toke.

Posted by: Scar at November 28, 2012 1:11 PM

And who are those idiots who think that organized crime is going to give up the business to allow for big government profits.

The 'idiots' that understand risk and reward and incentive.

Again, you have to be an idiot not to understand the difference between recreational use and serious addiction.

Posted by: LAS at November 28, 2012 1:17 PM

If you want to end the war on drugs and save millions of lives, then quite using!

Druggies always lay the blame on those that don’t want their kids around drugs, Islamic terrorists, or paedophiles.

We can always count on the potheads like LAS to defend all of the above.

You give us our full inalienable rights to concealed carry, stand our ground, and castle laws to defend ourselves from the Liberal doper society and you can stick rat poison in your veins all day every day.

Oh and bring back the death penalty as they have in Singapore, where trafficking and selling drugs to minors is punishable by death. Then I’m game for legalizing pot.

Posted by: Knight 99 at November 28, 2012 1:43 PM

The belief that every mind altering substance except weeds destroys lives indicates perhaps a excess of indulgence. And who are those idiots who think that organized crime is going to give up the business to allow for big government profits. Have another toke.

Wow, I'll need something mind altering to make any sense of that crypto babble.
Anyways...My circle of friends include many successful businessmen like myself, lawyers and professionals. Been married to the same woman for almost 40 years. However, since this thread is placing me in the untenable position of somewhat agreeing with LAS, I will not be commenting further on the subject.

Posted by: doowleb at November 28, 2012 1:51 PM

Doowleb >

“...this thread is placing me in the untenable position of somewhat agreeing with LAS,”

Agreeing with LAS? Give your head a shake, what has LAS ever been right about? The same weirdo who writes nothing on SDA but defend Open Borders, pedophiles, Islamic terrorism and of course legalizing drugs.

People need to ask themselves “what doesn’t LAS defend ?”, and you will clearly see that he doesn’t defend anything that supports healthy western values or a functional society.

The “organized crime” comment that someone made is bang on. You will never take the criminal off the streets by legalizing drugs, at best you take the easy money away from the street dealer and put them in your home looking for some easy money instead.

The Penny Anti potheads like LAS are only interested in self indulgence and doing it for cheaper, thinking they’ll save by growing their own and selling it on the side risk free. These same nitwits also fantasize about having real jobs one day without getting fired for having drugs in their system. Jobs like running sophisticated equipment, emergency services, or other positions that pay well to responsible people who take others physical welfare in hand. Dopers can’t look after themselves properly much less other people, that’s why they can’t have those jobs or positions in real companies.

Posted by: Knight 99 at November 28, 2012 2:38 PM

The Penny Anti potheads like LAS are only interested in self indulgence

The projection is strong with this one.

You give us our full inalienable rights to concealed carry, stand our ground, and castle laws to defend ourselves from the Liberal doper society and you can stick rat poison in your veins all day every day.

I'll smoke or stick whatever I want in my veins regardless. Don't like it? TFB.

Posted by: LAS at November 28, 2012 4:02 PM

You give us our full inalienable rights to concealed carry, stand our ground, and castle laws to defend ourselves from the Liberal doper society and you can stick rat poison in your veins all day every day.

Gee, 99, you've made this inane comment time and again, as if there were some connection between criminal activity and the ingestion of mind/mood altering substances. Repeating it ad nauseam does not render it any less dimwitted.

Posted by: phil at November 28, 2012 4:13 PM

phil "as if there were some connection between criminal activity and the ingestion of mind/mood altering substances."

So the A-hole who robbed us and told us that he needed the money to buy drugs was lying. He was probably a bit short for the collection plate at church. A-hole.

Posted by: Scar at November 28, 2012 5:18 PM

"I'll smoke or stick whatever I want in my veins regardless."
I draw the line at minors.

If you work in a semidangerous job then you should refuse to work with anyone high or loaded. Employers are constantly on the lookout for that.
So wtf?

Posted by: red gunlop at November 28, 2012 5:56 PM

What you are describing, my dimwitted scar, is the very real connection between criminal activity and the black market value the war on some drugs places on prohibited substances.

Posted by: phil at November 28, 2012 5:58 PM

@ Knight 99: You sound like a socialist.

Posted by: langmann at November 28, 2012 6:09 PM

phil "What you are describing, my dimwitted scar, is the very real connection between criminal activity and the black market value the war on some drugs places on prohibited substances."

And people wouldn't commit crimes to buy highly taxed drugs, just the illegal ones. Half the cigarettes in Ontario and Quebec are provided thanks to organized crime. Find another argument.

I've outlived and buried many substance abusers and paid taxes to raise their kids. Reminds me, I've got to buy a headstone for one. He lived to 50 with the last 10 years a waste of skin. Marginal employment after screwing up a highly paid oilpatch career with a couple stretches in jail for pounding on women. Quite the guy.

Posted by: Scar at November 28, 2012 6:28 PM

In Scar's mind, the black market created by excessive taxation of cigarettes somehow negates the creation of the black market by prohibition. Fascinating.

Posted by: LAS at November 28, 2012 7:13 PM

I've got to buy a headstone for one. He lived to 50 with the last 10 years a waste of skin. Marginal employment after screwing up a highly paid oilpatch career with a couple stretches in jail for pounding on women. Quite the guy.

Let me guess, this person's drugs of choice included socially sanctioned alcohol, if he does indeed exist.

Posted by: phil at November 28, 2012 7:53 PM

Scar >

I've outlived and buried many substance abusers and paid taxes to raise their kids...... Marginal employment after screwing up a highly paid oil patch career.

Yup have seen it myself many times over, had a couple of welfare uncles who eventually poisoned themselves to death, leaving behind some big sorry ass’d dysfunctional families. Also know a bunch of guys who lost great paying +100K oilfield jobs to smoking some weed.

Langmann >

“You sound like a socialist.”

Yea, how so? I could give a rat’s ass what kind of poison that any of you donuts want to ingest; I actually find it hilarious especially when you all flock out to tell the rest of us how together you have it. I’m simply not interested in paying for, or living in the societal fallout.

Only a retard thinks mind altering drugs are good for a society, if you want to f*ck yourself up on them have at it. The problem is that it’s me and other sober people that pay for your dysfunctional children, your health costs, the road and work related accidents and any other self indulgent BS you expect society to pick up for your lack of intellect.

That’s not socialist, it’s quite the opposite. If we privatize everything, and allow the good people to defend themselves from the money seeking drug abusers, to my mind you should be free to f*ck yourself up all day every day without interference from society. Just get in our face and we legally take yours off, nothing more to it than that. No Socialism involved.


Posted by: Knight 99 at November 28, 2012 9:36 PM

prohibition of alcohol created the mobster. prohibition of drugs created organized crime.

Governments create hugely profitable monopolies when they legislate. Unless governments also step in to regulate the vacuum they create, someone else will. By definition these people are criminals. Someone that is willing to break the law for profit.

Drug law make it very profitable to become a criminal and makes jobs for law enforcement. Thus, organized crime and law enforcement are allies in opposing decriminalization of drugs. Both groups have their livelihoods threatened by any such action and will oppose it strongly through political lobbying and contributions as it is not in their best interests.

The big loser in all this is the taxpayer, who foots the bill. The criminals and law enforcement split the rewards.

Posted by: ferd berple at November 28, 2012 9:47 PM

Knight 99: when did I say we should pay for the social screw ups? It's you who wants to pay for them: first by policing them, second by creating drug crime. Not many people run alcohol anymore or cause gang warfare over alcohol distilleries, and the small amount of moon shining that does exist only exists because of taxes and government regulations.

My personal punishment for thievery and violent crime is harsher than the current system and involves the victims being involved in actual sentencing...

Your arguments against their habits sound exactly like the arguments that socialist twit Adam Vaughn makes in Toronto when he talks about gun owners.

Posted by: langmann at November 28, 2012 11:12 PM

langmann, it's useless to argue with twits like knight99. He's offering in essence the same arguments put forward by the CTU 100 years ago. It doesn't matter that prohibition doesn't work; he's going to keep banging his head on the same wall anyway.

"Only a retard thinks mind altering drugs are good for a society"

No one of course says this. It's simply knight's distortion of the arguments of others because he has none of his own. Fact is only a retard thinks that our current managing of the problem is producing anything other than negative effects.

In the end, all his arguments consist of is insults, threats and irrelevant demands for unconditional freedom to carry guns wherever he likes. You can't deal with violent, irrational lunatics like this with civilized debate, langmann.

Posted by: cgh at November 29, 2012 8:27 AM

The druggies get quite upset about a threat to their escape from reality. Kinda like that nutty professor. :)

Leftists and drugs, maybe correlation doesn't equal causation, but it looks mighty suspicious.

Posted by: stradivarious at November 29, 2012 11:27 AM

Langmann >

“first by policing them, second by creating drug crime” “ Not many people run alcohol anymore or cause gang warfare over alcohol distilleries....”

Yea, they all sell drugs now, so what’? Guess by your reasoning we now legalize drugs and they all go away and get nice little jobs at McDonalds, maybe Price Water Copper as chartered accountants. Ok fine, you stick to yours I'll stick to mine.


CGH >

You’re the weirdo who misinterprets things people say around here as personal insults and then fly’s off the handle. I’ve seen it a couple of times. I remember actually supporting you on a topic many months ago (twice) with you going into a frothing psychotic rant over it. So you can fu*ck off with any opinions about me, you’re a nut.


Posted by: Knight 99 at November 29, 2012 2:27 PM

Langmann #2 >

The other relevance of open carry/ concealed carry laws verses ending drug prohibition is that it’s the same idiots that go on about their freedoms for access to drugs but not others freedoms to carry a firearm.

It’s the same for and against argument on every SDA “legalize drug” thread, and the same pot heads coming out of the closet to fight against proposed inalienable gun rights.

The biggest difference is that a gun does not cause a person to fly off the deep end and destroy others lives. The individual may do that, even one high on drugs, but the gun will never physically alter someone’s mind to make them behave other than they would without it.
So the question I’ve always put forth is what’s their problem?

All that comes out is self imposed “enlightened” arguments for their rights and BS counter arguments for mine.

Posted by: Knight 99 at November 29, 2012 3:48 PM

knight, so good to see you're still consistent. From the contents of your last, you've still got nothing. Can't deal with the topic so you throw insults.

Typical.

Posted by: cgh at November 29, 2012 7:46 PM

In the end, all his arguments (99's) consist of is insults, threats and irrelevant demands for unconditional freedom to carry guns wherever he likes. You can't deal with violent, irrational lunatics like this with civilized debate
cgh

I think that pretty much sums you up, knight.

Posted by: phil at November 29, 2012 7:53 PM

and the same pot heads coming out of the closet to fight against proposed inalienable gun rights.

Give one example of this. I dare you.

Posted by: LAS at November 29, 2012 9:57 PM

cgh >

Only reacting in kind to your insults, show me where I jumped in on you first. Nope first throwing of insults =

cgh at November 29, 2012 8:27 AM:

“It's simply knight's distortion of the arguments of others because he has none of his own. Fact is only a retard thinks that our current managing of the problem is producing anything other than negative effects.
In the end, all his arguments consist of is insults, threats and irrelevant demands for unconditional freedom to carry guns wherever he likes. You can't deal with violent, irrational lunatics like this with civilized debate, langmann.” - CGH

So piss off again if you can’t even get that much right. I’ve made plenty of well placed arguments on the issue, to which 95% of every nation on the planet agrees with. Great company you’re keeping BTW.


LAS & Phil >

Then in jumps Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dumb the SDA resident trolling potheads like they have anything worth of value to say this time around. I guess you dough heads figure you’ve got some sort of expert opinion, like smoking an occasional joint puts you in some sort of real world the rest of us just can’t see. Losers in every sense of the word.

Posted by: Knight 99 at November 29, 2012 10:54 PM

I find it both sad and funny that people are trying to reason with a man who believes that the entirety of reality, the endless cosmos and beyond, everything that exists and ever will exist, was created solely for the benefit of a specific iron-age desert tribe on the third planet orbiting a small star on the edge of galaxy #23409824234.

This is a person who believes only what he wants to believe, what makes him feel warm and safe. End of story. You will not change his mind.

Posted by: Andrew at November 30, 2012 1:53 AM
Post a comment

Before submitting, review the post to ensure your comment is on topic and does not contain words that might get caught in the spam filter (eg: insurance, viagra, online, poker). This is not a forum or a repository for off-topic link dumps. Profanity is discouraged. Take your extended debates and/or flamewars to private email. THESE RULES APPLY TO EVERYONE. Thank you.










Remember personal info?






Site
Meter