https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/health/canada-legalizes-marijuana/index.html

 

First a disclaimer: I do not use any drugs recreationally because I do not enjoy feeling and I am concerned about the ramifications upon my house. This excludes the occasional cocktail, about 1-4 times a year.

 

I think all drugs should be decriminalized. There should be mandatory education about the known impact and potential concequences of stubstance abuse. Driving cars while high should be illegal and committing any crime while high should be treated just as criminally. All the laws applying to alcohol should apply to all recreational drugs, including age restrictions. And recreational drug sales should be taxed heavily.

 

This will result in a huge drop in organized crime, an increase in revenue for the country, less burden on the criminal justice system, fewer drug-related deaths (quality and purity will be regulated, and people will be more educated about the inherent dangers), and smaller government! Wins all around!

 

Thoughts?

ew

ALL drugs? I feel like if heroine and meth were legal the next generation would have a lot of brain disorders and the addict population would skyrocket. As well as the crime rate because junkies will do anything for that next high.

 

On the other hand, i think if we were to research some of the non-lethal drugs more (marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, ecstasy, etc.) then there’s definitely improvements to be made to a nation that would legalize them.

 

I second the motion

ALL drugs? I feel like if heroine and meth were legal the next generation would have a lot of brain disorders and the addict population would skyrocket. As well as the crime rate because junkies will do anything for that next high.

 

I would like to bring to your attention:

Portugal

 

 

ALL drugs? I feel like if heroine and meth were legal the next generation would have a lot of brain disorders and the addict population would skyrocket. As well as the crime rate because junkies will do anything for that next high.

 

 

ding ding ding

 

ALL drugs? I feel like if heroine and meth were legal the next generation would have a lot of brain disorders and the addict population would skyrocket. As well as the crime rate because junkies will do anything for that next high.

I would like to bring to your attention:
Portugal

 

thats also like saying gun control in the US will make our crime rates like the UK... Chicago has probably the strictest gun control in the entire country and the highest murder and crime rate in the country... so just because one country had success does not mean it will translate into our country.  our social structure is much much different

 

ALL drugs? I feel like if heroine and meth were legal the next generation would have a lot of brain disorders and the addict population would skyrocket. As well as the crime rate because junkies will do anything for that next high.

I would like to bring to your attention:

Portugal

 

If you assume that people are not properly educated and proceed to properly educate them, then hopefully drug addiction will decrease.  There is an epidemic of addiction and prohabition has failed miserably.   When alcohol was banned in the USA it led to to increased organized crime and did nothing to abolish alcoholism.    I am not in favor of handing the drugs out like candy, but if it is well managed, it could actually make a very positive difference.

 

On a related note, heroine has been around for a very, very, very long time.  I've met people who were addicted to it for decades.  Not saying that's good, but it is what it is.  On the other hand, meth.  That stuff kills pretty quickly.  I never met a meth addict who remained  consistently using for more that two years. 

 

 

ew

 

 

What?

Edit:  I meant to quote King Cankles, but that's fine.  MK's post is full of merit.

 

 

ALL drugs? I feel like if heroine and meth were legal the next generation would have a lot of brain disorders and the addict population would skyrocket. As well as the crime rate because junkies will do anything for that next high.

I would like to bring to your attention:

Portugal

thats also like saying gun control in the US will make our crime rates like the UK... Chicago has probably the strictest gun control in the entire country and the highest murder and crime rate in the country... so just because one country had success does not mean it will translate into our country. our social structure is much much different

Did you really read the article?😑

 

Portugal stopped the war on drugs, they just let it be. And now they're better than before.

 

Chicago has the strictest gun control?

I thought that i was talking about unrestricted stimulus (drugs, guns, alcohol, SeaBees)

I am saying that if you derestrict stuff, then it's more beneficial than restrictions.

You are saying that more restrictions leads to more stimulus, which is the exact opposite of my point. (But also kind of my point, if you think of it, but my interpretation is different)

 

 

"When everyone is a superhero, no one is"

Remember that.

"When everyone is a druggie, no is"

 

 

 

ALL drugs? I feel like if heroine and meth were legal the next generation would have a lot of brain disorders and the addict population would skyrocket. As well as the crime rate because junkies will do anything for that next high.

I would like to bring to your attention:

Portugal

thats also like saying gun control in the US will make our crime rates like the UK... Chicago has probably the strictest gun control in the entire country and the highest murder and crime rate in the country... so just because one country had success does not mean it will translate into our country. our social structure is much much different

Did you really read the article?

 

Portugal stopped the war on drugs, they just let it be. And now they're better than before.

 

Chicago has the strictest gun control?

I thought that i was talking about unrestricted stimulus (drugs, guns, alcohol, SeaBees)

I am saying that if you derestrict stuff, then it's more beneficial than restrictions.

You are saying that more restrictions leads to more stimulus, which is the exact opposite of my point. (But also kind of my point, if you think of it, but my interpretation is different)

 

 

"When everyone is a superhero, no one is"

Remember that.

"When everyone is a druggie, no is"

 

not what I am saying at all.  I am saying just cause it had some benefits there does not mean it will be as effective in the US

 

I was using it as an example.  Gun control "works" in London, but fails miserably in Chicago.  

 

organized crime historically in portugul is nothing compared to in the united states.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALL drugs? I feel like if heroine and meth were legal the next generation would have a lot of brain disorders and the addict population would skyrocket. As well as the crime rate because junkies will do anything for that next high.

 

I would like to bring to your attention:

Portugal

thats also like saying gun control in the US will make our crime rates like the UK... Chicago has probably the strictest gun control in the entire country and the highest murder and crime rate in the country... so just because one country had success does not mean it will translate into our country. our social structure is much much different

Did you really read the article?

 

Portugal stopped the war on drugs, they just let it be. And now they're better than before.

 

Chicago has the strictest gun control?

I thought that i was talking about unrestricted stimulus (drugs, guns, alcohol, SeaBees)

I am saying that if you derestrict stuff, then it's more beneficial than restrictions.

You are saying that more restrictions leads to more stimulus, which is the exact opposite of my point. (But also kind of my point, if you think of it, but my interpretation is different)

 

 

"When everyone is a superhero, no one is"

Remember that.

"When everyone is a druggie, no is"

 

 

not what I am saying at all.  I am saying just cause it had some benefits there does not mean it will be as effective in the US

 

I was using it as an example.  Gun control "works" in London, but fails miserably in Chicago.  

You keep talking about Chicago, which sounds like the second most dysfunctional city in the USA, coming in a close second after Flint MI. This thread isn’t about gun control, which works better in some places than others. This thread is about the end of prohibition. The ban on drugs has failed. We need a new approach to solve this horrific problem. Do you have any better ideas?

 

You keep talking about Chicago, which sounds like the second most dysfunctional city in the USA, coming in a close second after Flint MI. This thread isn’t about gun control, which works better in some places than others. This thread is about the end of prohibition. The ban on drugs has failed. We need a new approach to solve this horrific problem. Do you have any better ideas?

 

clearly no one is listening to what im saying.  all i was saying is if anyone saying "it worked in Portugal so it will work in the US" is using flawed logic.  just because one thing is effective there has absolutely no bearing on how absolutely disastrous it would be here.

 

 

 

 

You keep talking about Chicago, which sounds like the second most dysfunctional city in the USA, coming in a close second after Flint MI. This thread isn’t about gun control, which works better in some places than others. This thread is about the end of prohibition. The ban on drugs has failed. We need a new approach to solve this horrific problem. Do you have any better ideas?

 

 

 

clearly no one is listening to what im saying.  all i was saying is if anyone saying "it worked in Portugal so it will work in the US" is using flawed logic.  just because one thing is effective there has absolutely no bearing on how absolutely disastrous it would be here.

I understand what you’re saying, but conversely you have absolutely no evidence that it would be a disaster here and not tremendously successful as it has been in Portugal. What we do know is that prohibition failed in this country and that the current drug laws have failed in this country. It is poor judgment to continue doing the same thing over and over and expect different results. Aside from a knee-jerk reaction of horror, I do not see an argument against decriminalizing drugs.

 

 

 

 

You keep talking about Chicago, which sounds like the second most dysfunctional city in the USA, coming in a close second after Flint MI. This thread isn’t about gun control, which works better in some places than others. This thread is about the end of prohibition. The ban on drugs has failed. We need a new approach to solve this horrific problem. Do you have any better ideas?

 

 

clearly no one is listening to what im saying.  all i was saying is if anyone saying "it worked in Portugal so it will work in the US" is using flawed logic.  just because one thing is effective there has absolutely no bearing on how absolutely disastrous it would be here.

I understand what you’re saying, but conversely you have absolutely no evidence that it would be a disaster here and not tremendously successful as it has been in Portugal. What we do know is that prohibition failed in this country and that the current drug laws have failed in this country. It is poor judgment to continue doing the same thing over and over and expect different results. Aside from a knee-jerk reaction of horror, I do not see an argument against decriminalizing drugs.

 

supply and demand.  decriminalization will greatly increase the supply of drugs.  Access to drugs will also be easier.  An increase of supply and easier access will naturally lower prices, thus increasing the amount of exposure people have to drugs.  Giving more people access to more and cheaper drugs will inevitably lead to more users, which in turn creates more addicts.  And more hard core drugs do create behavioral changes in the users that lead to increased instances of violence in the said users.

 

So there you go.  Argument against it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You keep talking about Chicago, which sounds like the second most dysfunctional city in the USA, coming in a close second after Flint MI. This thread isn’t about gun control, which works better in some places than others. This thread is about the end of prohibition. The ban on drugs has failed. We need a new approach to solve this horrific problem. Do you have any better ideas?

 

 

 

clearly no one is listening to what im saying.  all i was saying is if anyone saying "it worked in Portugal so it will work in the US" is using flawed logic.  just because one thing is effective there has absolutely no bearing on how absolutely disastrous it would be here.

I understand what you’re saying, but conversely you have absolutely no evidence that it would be a disaster here and not tremendously successful as it has been in Portugal. What we do know is that prohibition failed in this country and that the current drug laws have failed in this country. It is poor judgment to continue doing the same thing over and over and expect different results. Aside from a knee-jerk reaction of horror, I do not see an argument against decriminalizing drugs.

 

 

supply and demand.  decriminalization will greatly increase the supply of drugs.  Access to drugs will also be easier.  An increase of supply and easier access will naturally lower prices, thus increasing the amount of exposure people have to drugs.  Giving more people access to more and cheaper drugs will inevitably lead to more users, which in turn creates more addicts.  And more hard core drugs do create behavioral changes in the users that lead to increased instances of violence in the said users.

 

So there you go.  Argument against it

Based upon history of alcohol prohibition, that model of incorrect. None of these things happened when alcohol was decriminalized, and crime related to alcohol went down.

 

And as someone who thinks government should butt out of our lives I’m surprised you’re not saying “if I want to do some ectascy, smoke a joint, take a drink, that is my business and government should stay out of my business.”

I was wondering when this was going to pop up.

Sister Midnight, I wanted to get back to your original post.  CNN is not a bad source, but you might want to check out CBC for more in depth information.  It's all they've been talking about for the last week.  I'm currently listening to CBC Newsworld, and they are covering it now.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada

 

I'm not going to disagree with you, I personally believe that this is a step in the right direction.  The production, sale and consumption is now regulated and controlled.  However, you seem to be operating under a number of misconceptions.

 

Hugh drop in organized crime...maybe.  In order to purchase pot legally you must be 19 except in Quebec and Alberta where the age is 18.  The National Assembly in Quebec is considering raising the age to 21.  Minors, unless they can get it from someone who is of age, will still be reliant on black market sources.  Which brings me to my next point, providing cannabis to a minor is an Indictable Offence (Felony for you) under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , which upon a successful conviction carries a sentence of up to 14 years in prison.

As well, we are only legally allowed to possess up to 30 grams for personal use.  Anything over that is still illegal, unless you are an authorized distributor.

 

Increase in tax revenue: No.  The taxation on the sale of cannabis is designed to be revenue neutral, the Federal Tax is a $1.00 a gram, with 75% of that being kicked back to the provinces, to cover the costs of various education programs, and policing.  If they had taxed the hell out of, like they do with alcohol and tobacco, the people who use recreational marijuana would have continued to go to their usual sources, read the black market.  For example tobacco is heavily taxes (the average is $118.13 per 200 (June 2018)).  https://www.statista.com/statistics/449041/price-of-200-cigarettes-by-region-canada/ 

There is a very robust black market for cigarettes.  To "tax the hell" out of it would have defeated the purpose of legalization.

 

Smaller Government!?  No, absolutely not.  All of the provinces have either set up new agencies or are using their current Liquor Corporations to regulate the industry.  I'm a resident of Quebec, and the provincial government set up a new agency: https://infocannabis.saq.com/en/

Yes, it's in English.  

In some provinces private dispensaries are still illegal, if you want to buy your pot, you'll have to go to an Agency Store.  If you want a license to sell or grow the stuff, you'll have to apply to a provincial government controlled agency.

As well, regulations regarding cannabis is a provincial responsibility, the Federal Government just changed the appropriate sections of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.  This has resulted in a hodgepodge of laws and regulations across the country.  Not only that, there is a hodgepodge of differing employment policies across the civil service and private industry.  For example, the Calgary City Police are continuing their Zero Tolerance policy, they RCMP is allowing it.  I'm a member of the CF, and we only got our policy a few weeks ago: DAOD 9004-1 http://forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-9000/9004-1.page    The CBC interviewed a lawyer last week, and she said that lawyers, especially Employment Lawyers will be busy for years.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you.  I don't really care that cannabis is legal, in fact I'm to the point that I wish the news would stop talking about it.  I just wanted to correct, what appears to be, a few misconceptions.  Now, I've only repeated what I've heard and read on CBC.  Which is a better source for information regarding the legalization of cannabis, than CNN could ever be.

I also feel like the culture of America and it’s relationship with drugs is unlike any other country. I think culture would influence drug use so heavy if it was legal. My entire generation thinks it’s cool to pop opioids and drink prescription cough syrup just because their favorite (American) rapper says it’s fun.

I was one of those people that thought that legalizing marijuana would be really bad for society. Colorado, I have a daughter that lives in Denver, was the first state to jump in and challenge Federal law. Nothing was done to them. Others followed suit, and still the Feds did nothing. Now at least a dozen states have it... including my own state of Nevada. I am here to say from first hand experience, it creates millions in tax revenue with no effect to our society. It means drug lords are making less money. I believe somewhere there will be an influx of lawsuits regarding use and health issues, but it's just another frivolous path for the habitual litigators. 

 

The Genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to stuff that puppy back in. Congress must repeal the Federal laws on pot, and the sooner the better. Marijuana is not meth or heroin, and should not be compared with anything like that. My brother has been a drug addict all his life, and heroin is as bad as you can get. Pot is not the same, and I'm happy Canada has taken this step.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You keep talking about Chicago, which sounds like the second most dysfunctional city in the USA, coming in a close second after Flint MI. This thread isn’t about gun control, which works better in some places than others. This thread is about the end of prohibition. The ban on drugs has failed. We need a new approach to solve this horrific problem. Do you have any better ideas?

 

 

clearly no one is listening to what im saying.  all i was saying is if anyone saying "it worked in Portugal so it will work in the US" is using flawed logic.  just because one thing is effective there has absolutely no bearing on how absolutely disastrous it would be here.

I understand what you’re saying, but conversely you have absolutely no evidence that it would be a disaster here and not tremendously successful as it has been in Portugal. What we do know is that prohibition failed in this country and that the current drug laws have failed in this country. It is poor judgment to continue doing the same thing over and over and expect different results. Aside from a knee-jerk reaction of horror, I do not see an argument against decriminalizing drugs.

 

 

supply and demand.  decriminalization will greatly increase the supply of drugs.  Access to drugs will also be easier.  An increase of supply and easier access will naturally lower prices, thus increasing the amount of exposure people have to drugs.  Giving more people access to more and cheaper drugs will inevitably lead to more users, which in turn creates more addicts.  And more hard core drugs do create behavioral changes in the users that lead to increased instances of violence in the said users.

 

So there you go.  Argument against it

Based upon history of alcohol prohibition, that model of incorrect. None of these things happened when alcohol was decriminalized, and crime related to alcohol went down.

 

And as someone who thinks government should butt out of our lives I’m surprised you’re not saying “if I want to do some ectascy, smoke a joint, take a drink, that is my business and government should stay out of my business.”

 

 

alcohol consumption rates increased by about 50% within a decade of prohibition ending.  and while prices of alcohol were 3 times higher after prohibition than before prohibition, the prices were still lower than actual prohibition era prices

I also feel like the culture of America and it’s relationship with drugs is unlike any other country. I think culture would influence drug use so heavy if it was legal. My entire generation thinks it’s cool to pop opioids and drink prescription cough syrup just because their favorite (American) rapper says it’s fun.

this is also a huge factor.

 

I am all for the legalization of pot, but for the "hard drugs"  like heroine, meth and company, hell no

I also feel like the culture of America and it’s relationship with drugs is unlike any other country. I think culture would influence drug use so heavy if it was legal. My entire generation thinks it’s cool to pop opioids and drink prescription cough syrup just because their favorite (American) rapper says it’s fun.

If you were talking about any other country, then this may hold.

 

But you are talking about America.

I know that Americans don't really admit it, but you are a land of immigrants and from the time Columbus arrived, you have a melting pot of cultures.

More than any other country, except Australia and New Zealand.

 

So your culture as you state it, is as ever changing as it gets.

At first, America was Spanish, then British, then the white immigrants and black immigrants, you got a mix of both.

 

Basically my point is, American culture is not static, not by a long shot.

Your rappers may now smoke weed, but tomorrow they will move to something else, it's all a matter of time. You see, Celebrities work on a principle of being fresh, by being better than the average folks, giving the average Joe unrealistic targets.

But when the average guy finally reaches those ideals, then they are no longer ideal, so the celebrities will move on to something else. The sheep will follow the shepherd.

 

You see, when you destroy the black market, the profit margins of drug suppliers go down, thus giving them less incentive to keep on producing more and more.

When the cost of production exceeds the profit, then the industry goes dead.

And if various competitors pop up, there will be competition, leading to low profit margins, that's just the way market economies work.

I was one of those people that thought that legalizing marijuana would be really bad for society. Colorado, I have a daughter that lives in Denver, was the first state to jump in and challenge Federal law. Nothing was done to them. Others followed suit, and still the Feds did nothing. Now at least a dozen states have it... including my own state of Nevada. I am here to say from first hand experience, it creates millions in tax revenue with no effect to our society. It means drug lords are making less money. I believe somewhere there will be an influx of lawsuits regarding use and health issues, but it's just another frivolous path for the habitual litigators. 

 

The Genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to stuff that puppy back in. Congress must repeal the Federal laws on pot, and the sooner the better. Marijuana is not meth or heroin, and should not be compared with anything like that. My brother has been a drug addict all his life, and heroin is as bad as you can get. Pot is not the same, and I'm happy Canada has taken this step.

We agree on something? Did he’ll freeze over? Lol

 

 

We agree on something? Did he’ll freeze over? Lol

I'm absolutely positive that we would agree on many things. I believe the US Congress should remain within the limits of the US Constitution, as agreed. Then individual states are left alone to create their own laws, levy their own taxation, and work within their own budgets to govern their state. This way there is not much to argue about in DC. California can be as socialist as they want, and Oklahoma can ban abortion if they want. Oregon can only allow electric cars, and Montana can allow open-carry. Alaska can drill for oil, and Arizona can build a border wall. What is good in New York may not be good for North Dakota. We don't have to be the same, and we can all be more happy if people would just leave other people alone. If we don't start respecting each others differences... I believe there will be a reckoning. We have to have happy people. Everyone is so angry all the time.

Long story short: Make all the good drugs good

Sm had said that meth kills people fast, so isn't that a self regulatory?

 

People do drugs, and smoke because they choose to, they know the dangers.

For example, i know that fast food is bad for me, but I still eat it.

I know that i have a genetic risk for CV issues, but i still eat the "unhealthy" stuff, because i choose to.

 

If all the things that are harmful are to be banned, then you are basically banning the human life.

Sex is bad as it can lead to birth related complications, so we are to ban that?

Television leads to vision damage, are we banning it?

Cars are the one of the most dangerous things ever made, but i still don't care.

 

 

This isn't about the bad effects, it's about human choice and the skill of humans to be self conscious.

 

 

Restrictions never lead to resolutions.

They create more conflict.

Human nature seeks out conflict, to achieve their ends.

 

If meth is say legalized, the people who use it will then die off at a faster rate.

Humans are also programmed to survive, so they will learn from the deaths.

Personal experience is better than advisories.

Sure, i may sound like Thanos, but you know that this is true.

 

 

The very nature of humans, or you can say any neurally developed organisms, desire aunbridled life

As someone who doesn't use marijuana but has been in the industry in Washington State since it became recreationally legal almost 4 years ago, I can state with some authority on the subject that it has had an overwhelmingly positive impact. Not only did crime rates drop after legalization but the economic impact has been huge. Washington state alone sales over 1 bilion dollars worth of marijuana a year (close to 1.5billion now I believe). 37% is taken as marijuana taxes, 6.5% is state sales tax, and another 4% or so goes to local municipalities tax. It has also had the added benefit of increasing education of the plant and its various cannabinoids. 

Natural selection. Decriminalize any crime that doesn't involve a victim.

I had a chuckle when I saw this:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/girl-guide-cookies-cannabis-lineup-1.4868520

 

No...not pot users with the munchies.  In the words of one Dr. Dennis Leary "What was wrong with pot?  You smoke a joint, eat a twinkie and go to bed."

 

That's one smart little girl.