Sometimes one gets the sense that in Saskatchewan, the SaskParty sets policy, and the NDP enact it.
A post here on SDA about Marc Emery’s inappropriate comments about Irwin Cotler get a nod from the Ottawa Citizen. Thanks for that! Too often, the mainstream media simply rips off material as their own, or makes inadequate and vague references to “weblogs”. It’s not enough, people. Credit your sources. (Good article, too. They did some digging and Emery comes off the worse for wear.)
The Black Rod has an exclusive with Bruce Vallance of Winnipeg, and more of his thoughts on the 1970 FLQ terror bombing that injured him and killed a co-worker.
Newsbeat1 on the Jamaican gang “gun” violence in Toronto;
When this city had too much snow, we called in the army. When we had a disease outbreak, we put thousands of people into quarantine. When we had a blackout, we shut down business across the province.
It’s time our leaders admitted this is a crisis, too. How many more people have to be sprayed with bullets before they cut the bafflegab and show us some action? “
Perhaps it’s because snow doesn’t shoot at you.
Still no arrest in the Saskatoon murder of Jason Stroat, though there are persistant rumours (both reported on local radio and privately) that it was gang related, commited by a young offender and may have been an initiation. Meanwhile, the Saskatoon Police Service is still in a stalling pattern on their contract … well, you can’t call them “talks” exactly. The upshot – the police union refuses to allow the city to assign more officers to high crime periods because police don’t like to work those shifts. Want more cops on the street on Friday night? The union demands a corresponding manpower increase for Tuesday morning. That means several new officers have to be hired to direct traffic around morning fender benders for every one they require to police the inner city at night.
The police union will, although, allow officers to volunteer for those higher risk time periods. I kid you not.
And before you head out to enjoy what looks to be a beautiful Saturday morning – if you haven’t already (one vote per person, we’re not Liberals, after all) – go strike a blow against Trudeaupia and vote for Joe Clark. (Take out “he got a Nobel Peace prize just like Yasser Arafat” Pearson, too)
UPDATE: Well, what else can you say than it’s a “Liberal” poll?
With voting closed, and Clark and Borden coming out on top in their respective match-ups, what’s a good “Liberal pollster” to do? Why, give everyone a second vote!
If you think this “best combined” re-vote would have happened had Trudeau and Pearson prevailed, put your hand up.
Then whack yourself upside the head with it.
Maybe I’m being too harsh – maybe these new after-the-fact electoral rule changes are just “Calgary Grit’s” self-deprecating wink at Liberal Party corruption. Whatever the case, at this rate Joe Clark may end up with more votes than he got in 1979.
vote here.
Let me get this straight…cops “don’t want to work those shifts” so they don’t have to? What sort of idiocy is that? Why would you become a cop if NOT to fight the bad guys?
Get the white paint on sale…and then use it.
Apparently someone didn’t like the results of the first round of Greatest PM and decided to re-run the first it. I sure don’t recall reading about a “second vote” on the first round the first time I went to that entry. :\
New voting:
http://calgarygrit.blogspot.com/2005/08/second-vote.html
“Good article, too. They did some digging and Emery comes off the worse for wear.”
Please…sounds more like an inept smear campaign.
BTW, you’ve just turned a whole bunch of cannabis activists into freepers. Get used to us.
I’m surprised at the hypocrisy of you so-called “Western Separatists”.
Here we have a case of the central government enforcing laws and mores made in central Canada, on the population of BC who clearly favour ending marijuana prohibition, and have accepted Emery’s business practices for 10 years.
If this is not an incentive for an independent British Columbia, I don’t know what it is.
Greetings
Unlike the crank who runs this blog, I was distressed to see Mr. Zev Singer’s piece of Yellow Journalism regarding supposed anti-Semitic comments from Marc Emery and other members of Canada’s diverse cannabis culture printed in various newspapers throughout the country today. If anything the comments made by Mr. Emery and others were anti-Nazi rather than anti-Jewish and were directed at the fact that Mr. Cotler who is of Jewfish descent and thus witness to the horrors of cultural scapegoating, should be more sensitive to the scapegoating of other cultural groups. More to the point Minister Colter should distance himself from the Draconian sentences faced by marijuana using members of our society for their use and beliefs about a natural plant.
As I stated to Mr.Singer in our heated interview for his article, “humanity has an indigenous right, to all the plants of the earth. This right is encoded into the DNA of Creation itself and goes far beyond any religious text scribed by the hand of man, whether that be the Torah, Koran, Bible, Vedas or whatever”. Both my wife and myself practice our divine right to use the Earth’s fruits and this includes cannabis which we view as “The Tree of Life” and as the earth’s most useful plant, of special sacramental value. Cotler, an alleged human rights advocate, has denied that right and in so doing, I believe the Minister of Justice has violated the Canadian Charter of Rights as well as a basic human right.
Zev writes “Mr. Bennett’s posting goes on to say that the capital punishment the Old Testament prescribes for witches, homosexuals, adulterers and others would make the Torah “hate literature if it were written today.” This is in fact a true statement and no one would be allowed to publish such a thing in Canada today due to the Hate Literature Laws. The hate crime laws are constructed in such a way they that they protect the Bible and other ancient religious texts from being banned as hate literature. I am glad the debate on this has been opened up and I think that people who believe in the Bible and hold public office should be made to give their view on passages such as Leviticus 20:13 “And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”; as well as Deuteronomy 21:18-21 which calls for the death of rebellious children; Numbers 5:22-31 which calls for the poisoning of wives suspected of adultery, even the 10 commandments require the death of people who believe in other gods and who work on the Sabbath. There are numerous such points of “hate literature” within the pages of the Bible and these innate prejudices follow through into society effecting everything from same sex marriage laws, abortion rights, and even as in this case the war on Drugs. I think any vocal believer in the Torah or Old Testament, including Irwin Cotler, should be forced to express their opinions on these references, and state whether they either accept these passages, or they deny this part of the Bible (or Torah) and that they think a new edited an updated version of these texts should be made available to the public that are void of such “hate literature”.
I asked Zev about this and he says these laws do not count at the moment as the Talmud has put them on hold till the coming of the Jewish Messiah! I responded that “so what… are you telling me that as soon as the Messiah shows up it would be OK to practice these laws?”, I never did get a response from Zev!
As Zev notes my statement on this continues with “These same prejudices are at the root of the Bush Administration’s war on cannabis and comes from their Christian bias.” This is true and the Bush Administration’s vindictive War on Drugs and its focus on cannabis has much to with his Christian world view and this is deeply influenced by certain passages in the Bible.
George Bush- “You know, I had a drinking problem. Right now I should be in a bar in Texas, not the Oval Office…. There is only one reason that I am in the Oval Office and not in a bar. I found faith. I found God. I am here because of the powers of prayer…. There are faith-based organizations in drug treatment that work so well because they convince a person to turn their life over to Christ…By doing so, they change a person’s heart [and] a person with a changed heart is less likely to be addicted to drugs and alcohol. I’ve had some personal experience with this. As has been reported, I quit drinking. The main reason I quit was because I accepted Jesus Christ into my life in 1986. Billy Graham planted a seed in my heart, and it grew. I believe in the power of faith.””
Bush “accepted Jesus Christ into [his] life” in 1986, after giving up alcohol and being led to conversion by the Rev. Billy Graham, whose influence on the Whitehouse can now be felt in Bush’s Faith Based Drug treatment Programs. Indeed, after giving up a life of past alcohol and drug abuse, it seems George W. Bush is intent in making a whole nation, if not the whole world, follow that lead, even if by the brutal force of the State.
In 1972, when Bush Jr. himself was till puffing reefers, snorting cocaine and binge drinking, the man who converted him, Billy Graham, responded to a question posed by the Host of the The Hour of Decision “What part can organized religion play in combating the growing drug problem?”, and his response is very telling of his own influence on Bush’s faith based political agenda.
“I think that a professor has written a book over here at Berkeley on this subject of religion and drugs. And, he says that it’s a very interesting phenomena to him that there is definitely a relationship between religion and drugs. The word “pharmacia,” which is a Greek word that we translate in the Bible “witchcraft” is the root word that we get the word drug from. And, there is a relationship of some sort. And, he said this in this book, he said that the only total complete cure that he knows for hard drugs is a very deep spiritual experience.And he says I don’t know what that’s true, but he says, it is true. And, we only have two hospitals in America that are dedicated to the drug problem. One is in Fort Worth, Texas, and the other Lexington, Kentucky, Federal Hospital. And both of these hospitals, the psychiatrists say that they have less than one-half of one percent cured. And, the head psychiatrist at Lexington said the same thing. He said, “We find an interesting thing, when a person has a deep spiritual experience, we have much greater possibilities of curing their drug problem.” And, of course we know the reason as Christians because we believe a supernatural act takes place when a person is born again.”
The references to Pharmakeia, Graham refers to, became popularly related to Drug Use through the works of the Evangelical Christian writer Hal Lindsey, who in his 1970 book The Late Great Planet Earth, pointed to Revelation 18:23 and the reference to the word “sorceries”.”The word ‘sorceries'” writes Lindsey, “comes from the Greek word pharmakeia, which is the word from which we get our English word, pharmacy. It means a kind of occult worship or black magic associated with the use of drugs. This word is mentioned several times in he Book of Revelation. It is said of the great religious systems that ‘all the nations were deceived by your sorcery.'” Lindsey pointed at the revelations experienced by the psychedelic-ingesting youth of the time, noting that “these drugs reduce a man’s thinking and mentality to a point where he is easily demon-possessed.”
Taking up this ideology, Media House International Director Jay Rogers stated in a review of the 1994 book, “Politically Incorrect,” by Pat Robertson’s former right hand man, Ralph Reed, that the
“moral Law of God requires only two punishments for lawbreakers,restitution or execution. A repeat violent offender would spend the rest of his life in servitude or would be executed,” Rogers elaborates further, revealing the hidden agenda of many Evangelecists with the shocking conclusion that convicted drug dealers who sold drugs to children would be executed for the crime of sorcery. … Rogers bases his horrific claim on scriptural evidence “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,”Exodus 22. Not to be left out of the frey evangelist end-times guru (and sometimes unofficial Whitehouse Policy Advisor) Jack Van Impe wrote regarding the latest outbreak of fad drug use in the form of ‘Ecstasy’, in his April 1997 Intelligence Briefing that references in the ninth and 18th chapters of Revelation were related to the modern day widespread use of ‘drugs’ noting “The term ‘sorceries’ in these texts comes from the Greek term — pharmakeia — translated ‘pharmacy’ or ‘drugs.'” Indeed, pharmakeia is the word from which our terms “pharmacy” and “pharmaceutical” are derived.
In relation to this it is interesting to note that though little known, for over a hundred and fifty years various researchers have been trying to bring attention to the cannabis references within the Old Testament. “Like the ancient Greeks, the Old Testament Israelites were surrounded by marijuana-using peoples. A British physician, Dr. C. Creighton, concluded in 1903 that several references to marijuana can be found in the Old Testament. Examples are the “honeycomb” referred to in the Song of Solomon, 5:1, and the “honeywood” in I Samuel 14: 25-45″ (Consumer Reports 1972). Creighton felt that in ” the O.T. there are some half-dozen passages where cryptic references to hachish may be discovered… But that word, which is the key to the meaning, has been knowingly mistranslated in the Vulgate and in the modern version, having been rendered by a variant also by the LXX in one of the passages, and confessed as unintelligible in the other by the use of a marginal Hebrew word in Greek letters” (Creighton 1903).
Dr. Creighton is not alone in his view. A few decades later the German researcher Immanuel Low, in his Die Flora Der Juden, (1926\1967) identified a number of ancient Hebrew references to cannabis, here as an incense, food source, as well as cloth. In more recent times Professor Stanley Moore, chairman of the philosophy department of the University of Wisconsin-Olatteville, has stated that Biblical references to “aromatic herbs” and “smoke” could mean psycho-active drugs used in religious observances that, Moore said are as old as religion itself. “Western Jews and Christians, who shun psycho-active drugs in their faith practices, are the exception, not the norm.”.
Of the historical material indicating the Hebraic use of cannabis, the strongest and most profound piece of evidence was established in 1936 by Sula Benet (a.k.a. Sara Benetowa), a Polish etymologist from the Institute of Anthropological Sciences in Warsaw. Benet later stated that: “In the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament there are references to hemp, both as incense, which was an integral part of religious celebration, and as an intoxicant”(Benet 1975). Through comparative etymological study, Bennett documented that in the Old Testament and in its Aramaic translation, the Targum Onculos, hemp is referred to as kaneh bosm, which is also rendered in traditional Hebrew as kannabos or kannabus. The root “kan” in this construction means “reed” or “hemp”, while “bosm” means “aromatic”. This word appeared in Exodus 30:23, Song of Songs 4:14., Isaiah 43:24, Jeremiah 6:20, Ezekiel 27:19.
A modern counterpart of the word is even listed in Ben Yehudas Pocket Dictionary and other Hebrew source books. Further, on line, the Internet’s informative Navigating the Bible, used by countless theological students, even refers to the Exodus 30:23 reference as possibly designating cannabis due to “cognate pronunciation”.
When one comes to study these references in the context of the Biblical storyline it can be seen that many of the Prophets of the Bible were none other than the ancient Middle East counterparts and predecessor of the “New World” shamans that Christianized European explorers would later encounter in their travels. Sadly, with the so-called “discovery” of such shaman lead groups, came Christian settlers and missionaries, who would more than just frown upon indigenous religions. Whole cultures that employed these entheogenic plant-drugs for shamanistic ecstasy have been decimated by Bible preaching Christian missionaries, who did away with what they considered the primitive and evil practices of the heathens. In exchange the missionaries forced these cultures to except their more civilized religion, the true faith along with its burden of original sin, (and we have all seen what that cultural exchange has done for the aboriginal peoples of the world).
Respectfully Chris Bennett
You know what I find really interesting?
That the only group who has consistently lobbied for continued full scale prohibition on marijuana is the rank and file police officers. Now I know some people think that they know more about it, so we should defer to their authority. But they only know about the criminal element of it, which has been completely manufactured by the gov’t. Doctors should be the true gov’t authorities on all drugs.
The only reason I can see that the rank and file like prohibition is that many of them fear the loss of their employment. I know I wouldn’t want to spend the rest of my career as a security guard having been a cop.
We need less gov’t! End prohibition.
What is it about marijuana “activists” that makes them so mind-numbingly verbose?
‘What is it about marijuana “activists” that makes them so mind-numbingly verbose?”
I’d say it is more along the lines that Kate writes for an attention defecit audience that she soley feeds with sound bites that have no real depth or value. keep trying Katie!
I guess kate would be happier if we all talked in short sentences and used small words she could understand so she wouldn’t need a dictionary or thesaurus to understand us. Its hard to wrap up all the knowledge we have gained from actually studying the history of our persecution and learning the truth about Cannabis prohibition for ourselves and put it into small soundbites. Basically Kate, Chris is pointing out what anyone with even a grade 3 reading level could see if they read Emery’s statement about Cotler. There is nothing anti-semetic about it. Emery is critical of persecuters, and disappointed that someone of Cotlers ethnic background would choose to behave like the nazi’s did when the nazi’s persecuted the jews. There is nothing antisemetic about it, in fact it is anti nazi.
He also points out that certain things written in religious texts like the bible would have its authors prosecuted for hate crimes if they were written today. Particularly in the old testament where homoosexuals, women who commit adultery and various other groups of people are supposed to be stoned to death in the streets for their lifestyle choices.
You wonder why Cannabis activists are so “verbose”, well I wonder why prohibitionists are ignorant bigoted fools who would rather repeat reefer madness soundbites than actually engage in a debate of the facts regarding their reasons for persecuting us. Well I guess I don’t really wonder why, Easier to repeat the reefer madness soundbites, than to actually do some research. Every time one of you hypocritical dumbshits dares to debate someone like Chris Bennet or Marc Emery you just come out of it looking like the ignorant bigots you are anyway. You don’t want to have an intelligent debate because deep down even you know how wrong you are. The truth is on our side and the truth will eventually set us free. History will record you aggressors as the villains, of that I am sure. Only when the persecuters come for you and there is no one left to protest it will you understand the suffering of our people. When they come for you it will be too late to change your ways
“If this is not an incentive for an independent British Columbia, I don’t know what it is.”
British Columbians would never extradite anyone to the US for pot if it were up to them. Why isn’t it?
We are gearing up our website to make your very point, Ken. For BC nationalists, this would normally be a gold mine, if it weren’t for the seriousness of the issue.
If British Columbians wishes are not respected by Irwin Cotler, if it ever gets that far, we expect a major inflow of voters to our party, which by the way, is changing its name.
Paddy Roberts
Founder and Chairman
The Bloc BC
We, Alone, Are The Future, We, Alone, Are The True Nation
… short tempers, too.
Bloc BC? Kiddies, this is your brain on drugs.
I’m all of a Western Bloc and we can leave all the druggies behind to collect Ottawa sanctioned welfare.
Good piece by Mike Reagan, son of the late President: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19267
I should point out that I used to be a conservative,a member of the young conservative party, even voted for mulroney(ashamed of that now).The conservative alliance party has forced me to vote against my capitalist beliefs and go with the liberals and now the NDP because of their pathetic asskissing and bootlicking of the americans and their eagerness to follow their failed drug war policies. You’d think conservatives could understand the law of supply and demand Give me a conservative candidate who says legalize, regulate and tax and I’d glady go back to voting blue. I’ll take freedom over money any day though. I used to work on campaigns for the conservatives and drive conservative voters to the polls, now I do that for the NDP and I’m not even a socialist. You right wingers need to smarten up and get rid of all the drug warriors like Randy White and Stephen Harper before I’ll ever vote for a conservative again
Chris said:
I’d say it is more along the lines that Kate writes for an attention defecit audience that she soley feeds with sound bites that have no real depth or value. keep trying Katie!
Posted by Chris Bennett at August 27, 2005 09:11 PM
Chris – just a tip. Some of us come here with a limited amount of time, you know? If I want a treatise I’ll go read a treatise. I like to see an overview of peoples’ thoughts. A web link is appropriate and polite for content as long as you’ve posted. Whatever that is. I skipped over it and have no idea what you were saying. Maybe I agree or could be convinced, but we’ll never know now, will we?
To recap:
Short thesis with link to deeper material = GOOD.
Long-winded essay with follow-up insults directed at your audience = BAD.
The “druggies” wouldn’t need welfare because the underground economy would become legitimate and they would be considered businessmen. Just like the alcohol companies you rednecks are so fond of supporting. The “druggies” would not lose their jobs because they tested positive for weed they had smoked 2 weeks before the test on their vacation. Never mind that studies show that Cannabis users are higher educated and make more money, and pay more taxes than stupid redneck drunks who are often to hungover to even show up for work regularly. In fact we are smarter and make more money as a group than non users, so take your welfare and shove it up your pompous ass, Mrs Thatcher, you have more of a chance of needing it than us higher educated, better paid “Druggies”
I’ll tell you what, DrGreenThumb. You or your buddies show up at my daughter’s school and you’ll be wishing you got between a grizzly mom & her cubs.
Your comment “pay more taxes than stupid redneck drunks who are often to hungover to even show up for work regularly” surely wasn’t intended to win anyone over, now was it?
Joe is now at 56% (81 votes) w/PET at 44% (63 votes).
I guess more conservatives than libs have been checking his site lately? LOL
I didn’t expect to or even really want to win over any stupid redneck drunks like you Candace. What the hell would I want to go to your daughters school for , I already have a degree, like many Cannabis users. I advocate a regulated system of drug distribution which would probably keep more of the drugs OUT of your daughters schools and mine. I have three lovely daughters by the way who will never grow up to be closed minded fools like you. Student polls show us that pot is easier for underage kids to get than tobacco or alcohol, both of which are regulated. Thats because its just as illegal to sell an adult medical user cannabis as it is to sell it to a 12 year old. Don’t give me that I’m just protecting the children with prohibition bullshit. Unlike alcohol cannabis users aren’t prone to violent aggressive behavior like beating their wives and kids. Taking children out of loving homes because their parents use Cannabis instead of alcohol is certainly not helping them any. Especially when they are often thrown into foster homes where they are abused by the alcoholic opportunists who take them in so they can collect the lucrative paycheques from the government. You are so dumb, I could probably have a more intelligent conversation with the grizzly.
Unlike most of you people here I will still have some credibility with my kids when i tell them that cocaine and meth are dangerous drugs. When your kids try pot, and they will, you will have lost whatever credibility you had with them and they will not believe you when you warn them of the true dangers. You are like the boy who cried wolf.
DrGreenThumb, I have no civil words to throw back in response
Hope I don’t get barred from Grit’s site. I think he is often worth following. I couldn’t resist pushing a few buttons though.
His site is very often worth checking, for a Liberal Blog. Hope the skin is thick enough to take a little ribbing.
I think he is up to his armpits in quicksand on this idea though.
I see a verbose Liberal has attacked Kate and without any humour at all.
I am a junior Blogger, but that seems to be the lowest behaviour of a troll, having the gall to post a book length diatribe on a blogsite and then attacking the host with no real debate and no humour at all.
Silence is the best antidote in this case. The unfortunate novelist seems to be devoid of the power to reason. Tiresome. 73s TG
Now, now, Kate. To be fair, I’d said all along the contest would close on Tuesday so it’s not like I extended voting to help my boys out. I merely reset the poll so that each IP address could get 2 votes before Tuesday, instead of one.
Borden was 1 vote up on Pearson and Clark was losing ground to PET. If anything, allowing the second vote for everyone helps the anti-PET forces because, at the rate things were going, Trudeau would have overtaken Clark by Sunday and Pearson would have overtaken Borden by…about 5 minutes after I closed the old poll.
As I’ve said all along, go nuts and support your hero, Joe Clark!
PS, I have personally met and conversed with Joe Clark. He is clearly one of the finest human beings I have ever met.
Standfield was another excellent person who would have done great things for Canada if Canadians allowed him the opportunity.
It is true that some of the best people do not always win. 73s TG
“As I’ve said all along, go nuts and support your hero, Joe Clark!”
Hero. Well… no. But, here’s my dilemma …
On one hand, you have a lump of coal… on the other hand, you have the anti-Christ.
I actually liked Joe clark, but that was in the days when i was young and impressionable, and probably taking the lead from my conservative parents. Fortuneately I have educated them on the evils of prohibition and they both joined me in voting for jack layton in the last election as we all will in the next election. Get some sense and stop persecuting people who have done no wrong and a lot of ex-conservatives like myself would come back.
I challenge any one of you to come up with even one reason to justify the prohibition of Cannabis that can stand up to intelligent debate.
Kate sorry for insulting you on your own site, but as a medical user of Cannabis this issue is very close to my heart, and dealing with the bigotry and discrimination from people who have absolutely no understanding of this plant and its benefits gets me riled up.
Cannabis for medicinal purposes is quite different from the users who get gooned simply for the sake of getting gooned. I smoked enough pot to equal 10 years of cigarette smoking, so I’m not actually shooting off my blog just to antagonize folks. I know doctors who are committed to the idea of pot for their MS and HIV patients. And heroin has long been legal in this country for terminally ill patients, though doctors still do not like administering it. My criticism is that pot is used and abused by a lot of people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves, won’t work, and are committed to a culture of entitlement. They’re usually professional protesters and can be seen at any lefty demonstration just for the sake of bleating about something. BC is full of them – they’re dinosaurs.
Problems with legal action on Cannabis.
1) If only de-criminalized, organized crime will keep growing, selling it, and making the large profits.
2) If legalized, who will produce it other than organized crime (and individuals for personal use)? Private industry will not for fear of law suits stemming from adverse health effects of the product, adverse effects on mental health, claims for injury suffered while one is stoned, or caused by those who are stoned. Government also will not sell it in government stores for the same legal reasons, and is also most unlikely to enter the production business.
While smokers may be in a better legal situation if 1) or 2) occur, the organized crime aspect will remain with perhaps even greater consequences for society as a result of greater income from greater sales.
Mark
Ottawa
when will people stop using the nazi analogy for every little thing if Cotler had realy acted like a nazi Emery would have been dragged out behind the jail and shot in the back of the head and buried in a shallow grave.
First of all Mrs Thatcher, unlike tobacco Cannabis has never been proven to cause Cancer or any other health problems. In fact quite the opposite, more and more studies are coming out that show Cannabis in fact fights Cancer so comparing it to tobacco is not appropriate. There has never been one death attributed to Cannabis in all of recorded history.
Using your logic for jailing pot smokers that use it recreationally I guess all the people who have had a beer or other alcoholic beverage ought to line up in single file and proceed to the nearest jail. Alcohol is much more intoxicating than the stongest Cannabis, and the more you drink the drunker you get, often leading you to do things impulsively that are totally out of character. With cannabis you can only get so high and the high, quite the opposite of alcohol impairment, actually raises your inhibitions so you are less likely to behave aggressively or impulsively. Alcohol is much more likely to lead to problems than Cannabis, but we see alcohol advertised constantly on TV, using scantily clad women to encourage young people to drink. It is alcohol, not cannabis that causes most of the destruction on our highways, and alcohol that is often referred to as “panty remover”.
As for your idea that pot smokers do nothing but go to protests, that is so false it is just laughable. Studies show that Cannabis users on average are better educated and have higher paying jobs than non users. You may see more of the jobless ones at protests but that is only because most of us have too much to lose by publicly showing our support. We don’t want to be identified on TV to be tagerted for persecution, and maybe lose our jobs or our families.
Next I would like to address what the imbecile Mark from Ottawa had to say regarding legalization. If legalized anybody who wanted it could easily grow their own, and private industry would very quickly start producing it for sale. Organized crime would not be interested in it anymore because it would not be nearly as valuable as it currently is. The grow op houses would dissappear overnight because it would no longer pay to convert a 300,000 dollar home into a greenhouse. People would stop stealing hydro because they wouldn’t need to avoid detection by authorities. If you think private industry or the government would be afraid to step in because of possible adverse health effects, wake up, and smell the distilleries. The government and private industry have had no qualms about getting into the alcohol or tobacco industries, both of which have been proven many times more harmful than Cannabis.
Also if it were legalized there would be a lot more respect for the law and a lot of people who would be a lot more likely to see police in a positive light. Maybe the cops would actually have the time to spend fighting real crime.
stupid poll…means a big zero..or zed 🙂
“With cannabis you can only get so high and the high, quite the opposite of alcohol impairment, actually raises your inhibitions so you are less likely to behave aggressively or impulsively.”
I’ll second that as someone who used both rather extensively in my youth. I’ve never seen someone get into a fight after smoking too much pot and just the opposite for those who have drank too much.
Thirteen years after giving up both it’s the alcohol that I still have cravings for, not the weed. I know which one I find more addictive.
With all this being said, I’d still like to see Marc Emery buried in a landfill somewhere. The marijuana legalization movement needs a legitimate spokesman, not some ill-tempered, self-serving, mindless twit like Marc.
DrGreenthumb: It’s a lot harder to introduce a new prooduct on the market and avoid law suits when its ill-effects are identified than with old, established legal products. Plus what reputable company or government would wish to be directly involved–in today’s climate of the “precautionary principle”–in the sale of Cannabis when its long term medical and psychological effects have not been scientifically (as opposed to anecdotally) documented?
If legal, an awful lot of people will not have the time or skill to grown their own. What percentage of people actually make their own beer and wine? Thus there will be large market for organized crime to fill, since no-one else (see above para) will. Any reduction in price is likely to be made up for by increase in total sales. And organized crime is not shy in enforcing its will against competitors.
Mark
Ottawa
Cannabis has only been illegal for about 80 years, Mark, and has been used ceremonilly and medically for millenia. It is a plant, and is not an invention of man. It has been here since the dawn of time. How hard do you think it is to grow a plant? put a seed in some soil and add water, its not rocket science. If anything Marc Emery was helping fight off the black market cannabis profiteers because he provided the seeds for people to grow their own supply so they no longer needed to give the money to a dealer. They could keep their money and spend it in the legitimate economy.
Where exactly is this large black market making beer and wine? There is none, hasn’t been one since alcohol prohibition was repealed. Seagram’s and Labatt’s are considered legitimate businesses now. I havn’t seen or heard any stories of people getting shot in turf wars over beer lately either. There are plenty of people who would gladly run above ground cannabis businesses if it were legal and the black market would dry up and disappear. Are you honestly stupid enough to believe that people would be less willing to sell cannabis if it were legal? Only less criminals would be willing to sell it as they would be forced to move to something more profitable. It would open the market to regular businessmen, and all that underground money would all of a sudden become taxable.
One more thing Mark, if there was any serious harm that could be proved from cannabis use don’t you think they would have evidence of it by now? They have been trying to prove harm for nearly a century, and all they keep finding are medicinal benefits. Even if they could prove harm that does not make prohibition morally sound policy. If it were right to jail people for making unhealthy choices, then we should start arresting anyone who eats fatty foods, drinks alcohol, or builds cars.
“One more thing Mark, if there was any serious harm that could be proved from cannabis use don’t you think they would have evidence of it by now?”
You mean like LUNG CANCER? What? You didn’t think all those joints you smoked were loaded with carcinogens?
– cannabis contains more tar than cigarettes
– cannabis contains more benzopyrene than tobacco
– cannabis is typically inhaled more deeply
– cannabis is smoked unfiltered
The ONLY reason that there are no studies linking cannabis to cancer right now is that it’s bloody hard to track usage of an illegal substance. You’d better believe that they’ll find a monster link once it’s legalized.
Whatever you’re a ‘doctor’ of, it’s apparently not medicine. Cannabis is in many ways safer than alcohol, and in many ways more deadly. No matter how you look at it, an intelligent person avoids using either substance in excess (or at all).
Here in the U.S. tobbacco companies add heavy metals, pesticides, and a host of other chemicals making tobbacco infinitely more harmful than the tobbacco of old. It is tiring to see propaganda being spewed as if it were Gospel. Comparing alcohol and marijuana effects is to compare cap guns and bazookas. Sean, marijuana is deadly? Ganja doesn’t cause liver failure or stunt maturity levels, that would be Jack, Johnny, and Busch. Alcohol is in the system of many of those who are out commiting crime. Why are we allowed to take prescriptions that just mask a problem and have a potential to kill but if we make a choice to burn one instead of taking a synthetic poison we are somehow scum? We have been hoodwinked and hornswaggled for too long. Focus on our real problems, those that would sell our freedoms for some votes and influence.
“Comparing alcohol and marijuana effects is to compare cap guns and bazookas. Sean, marijuana is deadly?”
Hey doofus, re-read the ENTIRE comment thread and you’ll see a previous entry where I pointed out that I found marijuana less addictive than alcohol. My point was that neither substance should be considered safe in large doses, and probably not in small doses, either.
Drink enough and you’ll blow out your liver. Smoke enough and you’ll cough up a lung. I don’t think I like either choice, and that’s why I haven’t touched either for over 13 years now.
If I had to choose between pot and booze, and only one could be legal, I would choose pot as people seem to do less damage to themselves and others when they’re loaded up with that instead of alcohol.
– cannabis contains more tar than cigarettes
– cannabis contains more benzopyrene than tobacco
– cannabis is typically inhaled more deeply
– cannabis is smoked unfiltered
So why is it that there has never been one documented case of lung cancer in a Cannabis only smoker? It is prolonged exposure to smoke that causes problems and tobacco smokers often chain smoke, 25 or more cigarettes a day. Even heavy pot users usually only smoke 3-4 joints a day and that joint is usually shared with a couple of people so they are only exposed to the smoke for maybe 5 minutes in a 24 hour period. There is no real comparison to be made with Cannabis and cigarettes. Also there are many ways to use Cannabis without inhaling ANY smoke, like vaporizors and and cookies.
Tobacco is known to cause Cancer, and Cannabis has been shown to fight Cancer so this argument you are making is ridiculous. THC the active ingredient in Cannabis has been shown to shrink Cancerous tumours. The more they try to prove its harmful, the more health BENEFITS they discover. That must really piss them off being proved liars all the time.
Sean your arguements have no footing so I guess that is why you have to call me a doofus. Point blank, alcohol, cigarettes, and prescription drugs cause death and disease. Marijuana does not. Just because in your youth you over-indulged in cannabis and alcohol your experience shouldn’t set the standard for the world.
“Point blank, alcohol, cigarettes, and prescription drugs cause death and disease. Marijuana does not.”
So you’re claiming that a product that contains MORE tar and carcinogens than tobacco (proven fact), is smoked unfiltered (proven fact), and that is inhaled more deeply and held in the lungs longer (proven fact) is safer to use than tobacco?
You should get a job with the tobacco lobby — they need more people who think like you.
Sean, where are the bodies then? Tobacco has claimed many lives, Cannabis zero. Like I said the first time you tried to raise this issue, people don’ chain smoke joints. In fact each person in a joint circle only smokes a fraction of a gram of cannabis. Cannabis is also a proven expectorant which means it makes you cough crap out of your lungs. It has also been proven to be a bronchiodilater. It has been proven in scientific studies to have the opposite effects of smoked tobacco on the arteries. It is proven by scientists to have numerous health beefits and few if any adverse effects. The difference between my information and yours is that mine comes from doctor’s and scientists and yours comes from cops and politicians. I’ll take my doctor’ health advice over you reefer madness propaganda every time. Your either to stupid or too stubborn to admit when you are wrong.
“In fact each person in a joint circle only smokes a fraction of a gram of cannabis.”
Never been part of a joint circle. I don’t wear tassled suede, sandals, or eat organic tofu either.
“Cannabis is also a proven expectorant which means it makes you cough crap out of your lungs.”
So what it is that makes smokers cough up all that interesting crud every morning? Have they all been smoking pot without telling us? Newsflash: tobacco smokers cough a lot too.
“The difference between my information and yours is that mine comes from doctor’s and scientists and yours comes from cops and politicians.”
I guess I need to stop listening to the doctors who do research for the American Cancer Society. Go look at their Web site if you don’t believe me.
“Your either to stupid or too stubborn to admit when you are wrong.”
I’m pro-legalization, but I’m not blinded by ideology. Just because something should be legal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s safe to use.
Dr Greenthumb ? I don’t believe he was ever a Tory. Just some NDP wind up merchant.
In fact I don’t think he even exists.
Nothing is 100% safe to use, but you could more easily overdose on water than Cannabis. It makes no sense to have Cannabis illegal when more dangerous drugs are legal. Tylenol or aspirin cause a lot of deaths, but that doesn’t mean we should start jailing the people who use them.
“Never been part of a joint circle. I don’t wear tassled suede, sandals, or eat organic tofu either.” I see since you don’t do these things, that makes it wrong for others to do them? Typical of right wing nutters. I don’t go to church on sunday so you better not either or off to jail with you? Just cuz you don’t like something doesn’t mean it is your business to tell me what to like. No one in the Cannabis movement is saying you MUST smoke pot, we’re just saying that we should be able to decide what to do with our own bodies. Don’t try to tell me we live in a free country if I don’t even own my own body.
I don’t really give a shit what you do or don’t do, its none of my busniness until it affects me, much like its none of the states business, or Sean’s business if I choose Cannabis over alcohol or tylenol.
Sean, your sorely mistaken. Here is a link for you to ponder:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1106/a09.html?110161
The doctor who is the focus of the article is the researcher that the american gov’t likes to use to ‘prove’ that marijuana causes lung cancer. He changed his tune in the face of evidence, can you?
Hell, it is starting to look like smoking marijuana might even prevent lung cancer, but we will see.