Join us America in our pot smoking ways!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

BLOCK

The Fly
Joined
Mar 21, 2001
Messages
149
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
read this article and you'll get what im talking about;

QUEBEC (CP) - Police rarely charge anyone with marijuana possession because Canadians have an increasingly laissez-faire attitude to pot smoking, says a Vancouver police officer. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Vancouver police union, said, "People can still be charged with possession but it happens only a fraction of how often it used to. It's almost non-existent."
"You could walk in Vancouver and just smell the marijuana in any neighbourhood," said Stamatakis, interviewed Thursday at a meeting of the National Association of Professional Police.

Some other participants at the convention agreed it's time for the government to make up its mind on marijuana: either decriminalize it, or give police the funding they need to enforce the law.

"We're not getting a clear message and that's frustrating," said one police officer.

Stamatakis said Vancouver has about 7,000 marijuana-growing operations and there's little political will to shut them down.

The idea of decriminalizing marijuana possession has entered the mainstream recently, with proponents like Tory Leader Joe Clark and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

The federal government has already endorsed the medical use of marijuana.

Some convention delegates said Ottawa may be preparing the public for decriminalization, which would remove the penalties linked to pot possession.

"We remember what happened with video lottery terminals. They were in on a trial basis, but we've got them for good," said one Quebec officer. "I get the feeling that's what's happening here."

Conservative Senator Pierre-Claude Nolin, an outspoken supporter of decriminalization, said many police officers feel privately the war on drugs has been a failure and a waste of money.

But they won't express that view openly, he said. "How many investigators tell us the same thing in private, only to continue the war on drugs the following day and - above all - defend it in public?"

Millions of dollars are wasted each year on laws which are almost ignored in some areas, said Nolin, chair of a Senate committee on illegal drugs.

For example, people convicted of simple marijuana possession in Toronto are 10 times less likely to serve jail time than others in the rest of Ontario, Nolin said.

The Senate committee, which began hearings last October, is scheduled to submit an initial set of recommendations next August.

Nolin said that even if he favours looser marijuana laws, the committee won't necessarily recommend decriminalization.

He said it may be impossible for Canada to act alone on decriminalization because of its shared border with the United States.

"Changing our laws without the Americans doing it? It's just about impossible. It can't be done," Nolin told reporters. "Maybe we'll convince them to come along with us."
http://home-news.excite.ca/news/cp/010816/22/some-police-officers

....the floor is open for comments!
 
For the life of me, I can't figure out what makes pot worse than alcohol...

No one ever smokes pot and then comes home to beat up their spouse...
You never hear about someone smoking pot and driving their car and killing people...
Yes, there are side effects, but there are side effects to alcohol, hamburgers, and walking acrss the street.
Marijuana should be completely legal...it never will be, because politicians are very far removed from reality.
 
i don't smoke tweed anymore b/c of allegies, BUT, i have no problem with people who do. it's just silly that it it is still illegal. will america always be so hypocritical???

i'm going to hempstock this weekend, in ME!!!
 
Hitman, I agree with you 110%.


icon206.gif




------------------
Sicilian Women Are More Dangerous Than Shotguns

My Website
 
I can't see it happening folks, if for no other reason than the fact that no politician would ever risk his/her career by voting for its legalization. (or even suggest such a thing for that matter) They wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being re-elected.

For those claiming that politicians are "removed from reality", keep in mind that most of today's elected officials were the hash pipers of the 1960s. They probably can speak more accurately about pot's effects than you want to give them credit for.


I'm sorry, but the weakest argument for weed legalization is the "What about Alcohol?" rant. The legal presence of alcohol is a reason for KEEPING it illegal. We have enough people putting themselves and others at risk every day by being under alcohol's influence. Society doesn't need any more headaches.

It also would be a legislative nightmare. Can you imagine congress bothering to conduct a special session for all this? That's probably what it would take. Laws would have to be written to govern its production, distribution, and use. Should you legally be able to operate a vehicle stoned? What about using in public? Will businesses/industries still be able to enforce their drug-free employment policies? They damn well better be!

But, fear not, dear junkies-- The CIA will always be there to support your cravings--legal or not!


[This message has been edited by StarsnStripes (edited 08-23-2001).]
 
Originally posted by BLOCK:
hello?...what did we elect them for in the first place...to sit on there asses and not make new legislation?

I'm quite certain I didn't vote for them to waste their time on this.
 
Seriously, I didn't elect them to make it easier for people like you to get their kicks, have a good time and "get messed up!" as my friends used to say.

~U2Alabama
 
Originally posted by StarsnStripes:

It also would be a legislative nightmare. Can you imagine congress bothering to conduct a special session for all this? That's probably what it would take. Laws would have to be written to govern its production, distribution, and use. Should you legally be able to operate a vehicle stoned? What about using in public? Will businesses/industries still be able to enforce their drug-free employment policies? They damn well better be![This message has been edited by StarsnStripes (edited 08-23-2001).]

hello?...what did we elect them for in the first place...to sit on there asses and not make new legislation?
 
Originally posted by U2Bama:
Seriously, I didn't elect them to make it easier for people like you to get their kicks, have a good time and "get messed up!" as my friends used to say.

~U2Alabama

"people like me"??? what do you mean by that, i've never been high in my life..i haven't been drunk before either.

and im sure your "friends" want to get messed up, for whatever reason but i do not wish to get messed up.

and one more thing, why would it be a waste of time for them to do this?..would you rather them have more time spent on voting if they should get higher pay? I don' think that this would be a waste of time, nothing that is considered an "issue" is....and since you have an opinion on it that differs from mine..then it's an issue.
 
The reason I used "people like you" is because your thread title is "Join US America in our pot smoking ways!" which is first person.

People, including you and my friends, have different characterizations for the buzz/effects/relaxation they achieve from pot.

I think there are a lot of other legislative issues that have priority over making pot more convenient to smoke.

~U2Alabama
 
Originally posted by U2Bama:
The reason I used "people like you" is because your thread title is "Join US America in our pot smoking ways!" which is first person.

Nice save!!
 
It has been my determination throughout the history of your pot threads that you favor it both for recreational and medicinal purposes. I favor it for neither.

The only reason to make it legal for recreational purposes is to make it more convenient for "stoners" to get "stoned."

The only reasons to make it legal for medicinal purposes are as an appetite enhancer and as a pain reliever; there are other remedies for both of these sypmtoms, but I guess "gettin' stoned" at the same time would make it a little more fun.

(perhaps my "quick judgement" and "sterio type" (sic) of you were partially accurate?)

~U2Alabama
 
not quite....

as you should know "pot" is also used as a pain reliever in very ill ppl....cancer etc...

now...if you were refering to "those ppl" i'm sure you wouldn't have the majority on your side...but since you are obviously talking about the "stoners"(i'll give you the benifit of the doubt) you WILL have all those morally upright citizens at your call. so in that case i guess it would be a "nice save".

but just one more question, how do you know that im not from the first group..before you so quickly sterio typed me?


(im not but im just trying to show you how quickly you judge)->and for you information the title was a joke

[This message has been edited by BLOCK (edited 08-27-2001).]
 
acually...to make it legal wouldn't make it easier to get. I could go outside right now and in 5min i would have a dime. my idea is to get the gov. to admin/regulate the "pot" and get 100% of the profits from it. (legalizing pot wouldn't be the end of the world, it's already been done in other places. I think the only reason it's somehting that took this long to come up is because we[canada] are located smack on the boarder with a country that wants to remain "politaclly correct"...it would have been legalized in the 60s by Canada if it wasn't for regans wife and her "just say no" campaigne that scared the Canadian ...lazy ass...polloticians in to re-thinking there idea)

and for medical purposes its used for people that know there is no other possible treatment for there illness and who just want to releave the pain.

.....you've followed my threads?
smile.gif
 
Originally posted by BLOCK:
...it would have been legalized in the 60s by Canada if it wasn't for regans wife and her "just say no" campaigne that scared the Canadian ...lazy ass...polloticians in to re-thinking there idea)

.....you've followed my threads?
smile.gif

She wasn't First Lady, and Ronald Reagan wasn't President, until January, 1981. Are you sure you have never smoked it?

And yes, I've read your threads all along. I've always been one of Melon's few allies on this issue (though not on many other issues).

~U2Alabama
 
U2Bama i do think BLOCK meant the '80s and it was a misprint. I also don't think it would be a waste of legislators time to look at this issue. It's not just one of whether to appease people who want to get high...in addition to the arguments about tax collection (if it was decriminalized/regulated) and medicianl use, there's the issue the cops (above) are talking about. The millions spent in the states busting people for pot smoking, putting them through the legal system, and, many times, in jail. That kind of use of tax payers money is surely a good discussion/debating point for legislators. Of course, i'm a little spoiled up here in Victoria, British Columbia...yes, it's illegal here, too, but not many cops care, unless it's a major grow op they stumble onto.
 
finally someone has a clear mind, thank you Judah for reminding us what this thread was actually about
smile.gif
(i had forgotten myself)

and yes, that was a miss typed date

and to U2Bama..i never said i didn't smoke..i just said i have never been high
 
Yes, the courts would be a lot less costly if we just went ahead and legalized everything that is illegal now.

And, BLOCK, I do have a clear mind; just because I don't want pot legalized doesn't mean I don't have a clear mind.

~U2Alabama
 
i didn't mean it in that way...i ment that we were at each orthers necks about this issue..so we didn't have clear minds about the real issue (the cost) we were all into drugs are good/drugs are bad dialog
 
Oh how this issue will never die.

While it has been determined that tobacco smoking causes lung cancer, it has little to do with the substances in it, but with the sheer fact that none of that shit is supposed to be in your lungs.

The reality is that pot is not healthy whatsoever, and you may argue time and time again that everything from alcohol to hamburgers can give you cancer, but the body has mechanisms to break down those toxins. Your body has little recourse for lung damage, except for allowing a build-up of that shit or becoming scar tissue. Hence, eventual lung cancer and/or emphysema. And just so you know, one joint has the tar of an entire pack of cigarettes.

That in mind, it is well within the government's power and ethical obligation to prohibit such substances, and, personally, I wish tobacco products were rendered illegal. I'm not blind to the fact that marijuana was made illegal out of racism in the late 1940s, but, regardless of that, we've since learned exactly why it should be banned, and that is due to health reasons.

Melon

------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)
 
Melon you are wrong. I've read/heard from various sources that a joint of weed has 5-10x the chemicals in one cig, but not a whole pack. Also, since you smoke very little weed to get high, it doesn't matter.
 
Originally posted by StarsnStripes:
Should you legally be able to operate a vehicle stoned? What about using in public?

But, fear not, dear junkies-- The CIA will always be there to support your cravings--legal or not!

Wow, for one of the first times Im actually agreeing and disagreeeing with someone at the same time.

You were doin great up to the point about driving. I dont know about in the States, but in Canada it is already ILLEGAL to Drive While Impaired. Impaired most commonly refers to alcohol, but it can and is also applied to drugs. It is illegal to operate a vehicle if you are on prescription drugs that impair your ability to safely do so. The same goes for weed. If you get pulled over because you are driving erratically or during a spot check and the officer feels you are impaired in any way, you will be charged. If your joint is still burning, you'll get charged with possession as well, and even possibly dangerous driving.

As for the 'in public' question, who gives a damn? People drink in public. People smoke CIGARRETTES in public, which are deliberately laced with toxins to keep you hooked.

Now for the part I agree with: of course, the CIA is the biggest drug dealer in the world, and one of the big reasons the war on drugs will NEVER be won.
 
icon206.gif



The politicians who are against weed/hemp etc. are drunks who have never tried it.

The effects of alcohol (addiction/abuse/sickness) etc. are much worse than that of weed.

I only speak for myself, but I think the whole argument is hypocritical.

Drunks are not mellow. That is my last thought.
 
How far back did you guys have to go to find this post???

P.S. I side with the "pot heads"

------------------
" Can playing a Gibson guitar make you rich and famous? ... how do you define rich and famous? "

-Gibson, pure
 
It should be legalised. We should have the police cracking down on the drugs that really matter, not marijuana. My best friend's grandparents in Kerala smoke marijuana as a part of their cultural heritage, and they've lived to a ripe old age, while her western grandparents are both dead at 63. I'm not saying marijuana is good for you, I'm saying that its quite common, quite harmless compared to other drugs, and the police should concentrate their very limited resources on the real killers.

Legalise it, move on to the other drugs that matter. Isn't Holland the one that has legalised it? I forget which one exactly... well, the point is the country that has legalised it has a LOT less problems with drugs than say, Britain. And America, I may add.

Legalise it.
I'm not a junkie, I'm a teetotaller with an open-mind. I'm not saying that its right, what I'm saying is that I don't DO drugs. I just think the justice system should focus on the real threat.


Ant.


Ant.
 
That's what I like to hear, legalize marijuana. I am a "casual" smoker of the stuff, and so far I havn't seen any MAJOR effects to my memory, or speach. To me, loss of sleep hurts my speach and memory more, and all marijuana does is make my sleepy.

I personally have nothing against it, and I don't have any problem with people saying what they want about "pot-heads". But no one hear can claim that marijuana is any worst than Tobacco, or Alcohol.

If someone thinks they have proof otherwise, please do tell.

------------------
" Can playing a Gibson guitar make you rich and famous? ... how do you define rich and famous? "

-Gibson, pure
 
Back
Top Bottom