# Canada easing medical marijuana laws



## jimnyc (Oct 7, 2003)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031007/ap_on_he_me/canada_medical_marijuana_3

This one really looks like a desperate sick person truly in need of marijuana! Maybe a relative of Chretien?


----------



## janeeng (Oct 8, 2003)

Nice pipe! here's one of their pages on WEED! 

Weed!


----------



## Bry (Oct 8, 2003)

Would any of you seriously argue that marijuana should remain illegal as opposed to such known killers as alcohol and tobacco?  Have you seen the stats on college kids drinking themselves to death, not to mention the rodtundity of the average football fan's beer belly?  Ever heard of anyone smoking themselves to death?   

BTW, I read a report about the reactions of some of the patients that are actually enrolled in the program to provide marijuana by perscription.  They were quite angry at the quality of the government's product, calling it disgusting and inconsumable and many were demanding a refund.  

The government is apparently producing their weed under contract in the deep dark depths of an abandoned mine.  I guess they don't want any unwelcome locals trimming their crop.

Funny picture, thanks for posting it.

-Bry


----------



## jimnyc (Oct 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Bry _
> *Would any of you seriously argue that marijuana should remain illegal as opposed to such known killers as alcohol and tobacco?  Have you seen the stats on college kids drinking themselves to death, not to mention the rodtundity of the average football fan's beer belly?  Ever heard of anyone smoking themselves to death?
> 
> BTW, I read a report about the reactions of some of the patients that are actually enrolled in the program to provide marijuana by perscription.  They were quite angry at the quality of the government's product, calling it disgusting and inconsumable and many were demanding a refund.
> ...



I won't argue over the aspects of whether or not is should be totally legalized. I just found it funny that most of those who are complaining or protesting are drug abusers, and not medical patients.

I read the same article as you concerning the quality of the governments dope. Again, druggie speak about how hight it will get them! What should be of concern is whether or not it helps patients deal with their suffering.

That would be hilarious if a "Bill and Ted" duo were to make off with a couple tons of their secret stash!


----------



## Bry (Oct 8, 2003)

LOL

Maybe that is the lesson to be taken from this:


*Legal Weed Sucks* 

Protect fat buds and good times!!!  
Fight to keep Marijuana illegal!!!


----------



## jimnyc (Oct 8, 2003)

So true! Illegal drugs have always been better quality than those that are regulated.

Damn, you should email that slogan to a few in Canada, I think it's perfect! LOL


----------



## 5stringJeff (Oct 8, 2003)

I am totally for the legalization of marijuana and hemp products.  I think if the tobacco companies were smart, they would be pushing for it too.  They would lose some tobacco profits, but they would profit much more on being able to sell the remainder of the MJ plant for manufacturing purposes.

LEGALIZE IT!!!


----------



## Bry (Oct 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by gop_jeff _
> *I am totally for the legalization of marijuana and hemp products.  I think if the tobacco companies were smart, they would be pushing for it too.  They would lose some tobacco profits, but they would profit much more on being able to sell the remainder of the MJ plant for manufacturing purposes.
> 
> LEGALIZE IT!!! *



You crack me up, jeff.  Just when I think I got you figured out...

LOL


----------



## 5stringJeff (Oct 8, 2003)

This is one of the few issues where I stray from the GOP party line... I am a small 'l' libertairian at heart - I believe that the Constitution, above all else, protects individual liberties, both social and economic.


----------



## Isaac Brock (Oct 8, 2003)

Personally I think the US officials and detractors are making much ado about nothing.  If these patients think pot helps there sickness that all the more power too them.  In complete honestly, if they grow it themselves (which they can now do), they cause less of a financial impact on our already over-burdenned health care system.  It may be a placebo, but who are we to argue it isn't.

Frankly with the whole pot issue i think it's silly.  Alchohol is more addictive and causes more social ills than pot beyond the organized crime issues (which could be easily eliminated with legalization).  When was the last time you heard of a person breaking out into a pot-smoking rage trashing everything in sight... probably not so frequently.

If people want to sedate themselves and maybe damage their brains, go ahead.  I personally doubt if pot is that great of a personal health concern in small infrequent uses although i do not profess to be a medical expert.  I say legalize the whole thing and at least eliminate the organized crime angle of the whole thing.

Plus.... ya never know.  Canadian tourism could soar.


----------



## jimnyc (Oct 9, 2003)

> Personally I think the US officials and detractors are making much ado about nothing. If these patients think pot helps there sickness that all the more power too them. In complete honestly, if they grow it themselves (which they can now do), they cause less of a financial impact on our already over-burdenned health care system. It may be a placebo, but who are we to argue it isn't.



I agree, Isaac. This was posted in an attempt at humor! I think there are obviously much more drug problems within the USA.



> Frankly with the whole pot issue i think it's silly. Alchohol is more addictive and causes more social ills than pot beyond the organized crime issues (which could be easily eliminated with legalization). When was the last time you heard of a person breaking out into a pot-smoking rage trashing everything in sight... probably not so frequently.



Agreed again. Take a look at the figures though and look at what the governments make off of drug busts (confiscations, penalties...) They'll make less if they legalize. Drug enforcement, believe it or not, is a big money maker! With that said, I think they would be much better off legalizing and controlling. I believe it would reduce crime and they can pocket a decent amount of change.



> If people want to sedate themselves and maybe damage their brains, go ahead. I personally doubt if pot is that great of a personal health concern in small infrequent uses although i do not profess to be a medical expert. I say legalize the whole thing and at least eliminate the organized crime angle of the whole thing.



U say sumthin? i wuz bizzy eatin me a twinkie!   



> Plus.... ya never know. Canadian tourism could soar.



Look at Holland! I honestly don't know the figures, but I'm quite confident a lot of their tourism can be chalked up to their easy access to marijuana and hashish.


----------



## Jeff K (Nov 24, 2003)

I can't say I agree with legalizing marijuana, but I can agree with a decriminilization.   You'd get kids smoking pot every once and a while.  People have been smoking marijunana to thousands of years.  

It's like a hamster, you give it food at a certain time everyday.  Pretty soon it knows when it's getting food.

Then you attach it's food to an electrode and it in the cage.  One shock and that hamster won't touch the food.

Animals are like that.  That's why if marijuana was known to have a serious effect on animal health animals wouldn't eat it.  But animals do eat it.  

Humans are animals, they've smoked marijuana for thousands of years.  If the plant killed you when you inhaled it people would learn pretty quickly that you don't touch that shit, let alone smoke it.

Pretty simple, even with an anecdote to help people understand.  Follow closely children, it makes sense.


----------



## nbdysfu (Dec 3, 2003)

_Originally posted by Jeff K_
hen you attach it's food to an electrode and it in the cage. One shock and that hamster won't touch the food.

*Animals are like that. That's why if marijuana was known to have a serious effect on animal health animals wouldn't eat it. But animals do eat it.* 

Humans are animals, they've smoked marijuana for thousands of years. If the plant killed you when you inhaled it people would learn pretty quickly that you don't touch that shit, let alone smoke it.
_________________________ ______________________

I've also watched videos of rabbits smoking cigarettes. But then I suppose bunnies don't get cancer. 

Pot hasn't directly messed up anyone I know, but it has led several of my close friends to try more dangerous drugs with people whom they have nothing in common with besides substance abuse. That's no bs.

Lifting their own bans against substance to take advantage of the us is no new trick for Canada. Just go back to the days of prohibition and Al Capone getting whisky from across the frozen great lakes. :cof:


----------



## Jeff K (Dec 3, 2003)

I am a moderate marijuana smoker and I've never tried any harder drugs.  I also know many people who smoke a ton more pot than I do who function quite normally and have never touched harder drugs.  I also know people who did harder drugs before they smoked marijuana.  I know people who smoke marijuana and then did harder drugs.

I really depends on the individual and their willingness to experiment I think.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Dec 3, 2003)

I think that the fact that MJ is outlawed makes it a gateway drug.  Here's why:

If you want to buy MJ, you have to find someone to sell it to you.  In most cases, this person is also willing to sell you other drugs (more money).
However, most people don't wake up one day and decide to smoke a bag of crack.  They start with softer stuff and work their way up.  Drug dealers use this to their advantage.
The first few buys are MJ.  After a while, the dealer suggests something a little stronger - maybe a pill or two.  After the addict has become a regular user, the dealer is able to peddle the hard stuff onto him - cociane, herion, ecstacy, meth, etc.

Put MJ in the drug store or the gas station, and the drug dealers have lost their ability to gain customers.  There are not too many drugs out there as mild and relatively harmless as MJ.  I believe legalization would curtail hard drug use substantially.


----------



## Jeff K (Dec 3, 2003)

I have to agree with most of what you said Jeff.  However, through my experience I have never had someone try to push harder drugs on me through the aquisition of marijuana.  On the flip side of that most people who have access to marijuana do have contacts to get harder drugs and if I really wanted some hard drugs I could get them.  Despite that, I'm in no hurry to do a line of coke or a pill of speed or god knows what else.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Dec 3, 2003)

Jeff K... good to hear that you are moderating yourself!   But the fact that you know you can get access to harder stuff is my point exactly.  If we legalize MJ, we can cut off the drug dealers' customer base, while providing MJ to those who want to partake.


----------



## Jeff K (Dec 3, 2003)

I'm all for cutting of the base of people who deal hard drugs.  My only concern with legalization would be tobacco companies getting hold of it and making it addictive.


----------



## lilcountriegal (Dec 3, 2003)

> . My only concern with legalization would be tobacco companies getting hold of it and making it addictive.



I'm a little confused by this statement.... are you saying marijuanna isnt addictive?

And might I just add that I think this is the first time in my life that I've heard from an admitted pot smoker who is _against_ legalization lol.


----------



## Jeff K (Dec 3, 2003)

I'm saying marijuana is not PHYSICALLY addictive (Ie. You don't go through physical withdrawl as is the case with harsher drugs)

However, I AM will to admit that marijuana is not without it's psychological effects.  From what I've observed many of the effects are based on the individual.  Chronic use causes laziness and general apathy in most people, however, I've met some people who do not seem to experience this and at times are more productive when they're high.  Irritability after frequent use (being high at one point or another for consecutive days) is also a common documented effect.
     There are the obvious health concerns.  Inhaling any type of smoke into your lungs is bad for you.  Having voulenteered in a few health studies I feel I've been able to get past various health myths regarding marijuana.  The drug contains roughly the same amount of toxins as ciggerettes, yet the marijuana smoker (even someone who smokes 6 marijuana joints each day, a rediculous amount) inhales less volume of smoke than someone who smokes ciggerettes habitually.
      With that said, we are 30 to 40 years into what some call 'the pot smoking revolution.'  This so called 'revolution' started in the early 60's and has continued to this day.  At this point cases of lung cancer in marijuana smokers (even heavy users of the drug) seems to be roughly level with the rest of the population (This is from an Oxford study conducted in 1998).  This is one fact even I find hard to believe as inhaling smoke is bound to have adverse effects.

It's definantly an interesting case no matter what side you stand on.


----------



## nbdysfu (Dec 3, 2003)

*1.*

*2.*Phillip Morris pens the "Ciga-joint," which of course includes marijuana, nicotine, and lovely tar. In the first month customers get a free handy dandy "Ciga-roach" lapelle clip. In the second month they come at with a new formula that be smoked twice as frequently. Woody Harrelson becomes a rope manufacturer, and Clinton comes clean about his good ol' college days. Turned out from his previous business of selling 'harmless' marijuana to minors, the 40 year old crack addict makes the move to meth, which becomes the cool street drug of choice that "does no harm to anyone, dude".


Personally neither option is palatable to me. Option 2 might allow us to control the source, but it would simply open up more room for the supply of dangerous drugs on the illegal market, as the 40 year old dealer has to make money to support his alimony and his crack habit and has no interest in legitimate business. Option 1 is just status quo and allows us to think better of ourselves, while others fall through the cracks.


Substances are used because they provide chemical stimulation. If you think pot makes you more productive, you're addicted. I think a convincing cultural shift is needed to take away substance abuse.

Material substance is not a proper avenue for elevating the human mind. The 60's revolution was a lot of other things besides smoking pot, and if you'll notice was one of the few things from that period that failed to take hold in the legitimate ratified mainstream. 

Pot should not be used as alcohol is, nor should meth be used as pot is. Nor should alcohol be used as coffee, nor coffee as water.


----------



## Jeff K (Dec 3, 2003)

Again, there is no proof of physical addiction to marijuana.  I smoked marijuana on average every two days during the summer when I had nothing to do.  School started and I cut it back to once per month.  I currently have not smoked marijuana in over 3 months.  Reducing my consumption to zero required no effort other than a consious personal choice.

Also, there are far more than a mere 2 choices my friend.  The Netherlands has one of the most liberal drug policies in the world.  What has it resulted in?  Widespread chaos?  Nope.  In fact, the Netherlands has one of the lowest per capita use rates of hard drugs (coke, meth, heroin etc) in the whole world.  Also, their drug related crime is quite low.  Narrowing it down to two situations is rediculous.  The drug issue could be handeled in a variety of ways, from government regulation to a simple decriminilization.

Yes, substances are used for chemical stimulation and I do not disagree. I do not think you should pass judgement upon me as being an addict when you are the one declaring that it doesn't matter what I think of your character because of an argument you put forth.  I am and have been a productive member of society ever since I started smoking marijuana 6 years ago.  I managed to get straight A's in school and get into one of the most prestigous (sp?) programs in Canadian University.  While doing this I held down a part time job for 4 years to pay for my university education.  This brings me to another fact.  Europe has essentially realized that the marijuana user is a productive member of society.  Something much of the rest of the world has failed to do so far.

You speak of what I mentioned as a revolution as a mainstream phenomenon.  Of course it is not a mainstream phenomenon, it's a sub-culture that still exists widely today.

You say Marijuana should not be used as alcohol, coffee etc.  Of course it should not be, it's a totally different case.  Alcohol alone has caused more problems in society, more violence against persons and property than marijuana ever has and that cannot be disputed.


----------



## jimnyc (Dec 3, 2003)

Yummy!


----------



## nbdysfu (Dec 3, 2003)

_Originally posted by Jeff K_
________________________ ________________________
do not think you should pass judgement upon me as being an addict when you are the one declaring that it doesn't matter what I think of your character because of an argument you put forth. 
________________________ ________________________

At what point in  time previously have I specifically pointed my finger at you, Jeff K? What's to say I haven't been there?


_Originally posted by Jeff K_
________________________ ________________________
Alcohol alone has caused more problems in society, more violence against persons and property than marijuana ever has and that cannot be disputed. 
________________________ ________________________

Da'n straight.
They said the same thing about alcohol towards the end of prohibition, but then
I guess bootleggers were much more evil than bodegas are. 

_Originally posted by Jeff K_
________________________ ________________________
The Netherlands has one of the most liberal drug policies in the world. What has it resulted in? Widespread chaos? Nope. In fact, the Netherlands has one of the lowest per capita use rates of hard drugs (coke, meth, heroin etc) in the whole world. Also, their drug related crime is quite low. 
________________________ ________________________


The Netherlands = the United States? I think not. That's like comparing Ohio to all 49 other states. 
Hard drug dealers are where the money and the people they hate are. 


_Originally posted by Jeff K_
________________________ ________________________
Narrowing it down to two situations is rediculous. The drug issue could be handeled in a variety of ways, from government regulation to a simple decriminilization.
________________________ ________________________

However much smoke you blow,  it boils down to three basic scenarios: status quo, 'decriminalization,' or finding better, more useful, communal ways of bringing ourselves to nirvana.

_Originally posted by Jeff K_
________________________ ________________________
[Opening statement]Again, there is no proof of physical addiction to marijuana.
[Supporting statement]Yes, substances are used for chemical stimulation and I do not disagree.
________________________ ________________________

There are plenty of other ways to be addicted besides physical ones, such as the social line that it "mellows me out, dude" or the institutional "it helps me write out mindless drivel that I don't really care about so I can get A's," or the even better "I smoke pot so won't have to drink." Not saying that you're one of these, nor have you directly stated so. Sorry if it offends you.

_Originally posted by Jeff K_
________________________ ________________________

You speak of what I mentioned as a revolution as a mainstream phenomenon. Of course it is not a mainstream phenomenon, it's a sub-culture that still exists widely today.
________________________ ________________________
Maybe we're not talking about the same regions, but in the US, it was along with Civil Rights, Women's Rights, environmental protection, cultural experimentation, anti-McCarthyism, peace protests...onandon, many good things happened 40 years ago. The pot subculture in the U.S. today is a joke, it is little more than a parasite that harks back to an era when it was a bad side effect, rather than the major cause it claims to be.

_Originally posted by Jeff K_
________________________ ________________________
Europe has essentially realized that the marijuana user is a productive member of society.
________________________ ________________________

Another way to put it is that a lot of crafty people have got it in their heads that they can make far more money off their dead-end job workers if they sell them pot. The highly educated will continue to function as you, because you know when to stop. It's just another case of liqour and cigarettes for your already bummed out working stiff compatriots.


If you'll believe me I don't have any problem with pot smokers, merely the people who would supply it to them for their own short-sighted gains.


----------



## ProudToBeAJew (Jan 23, 2004)

Oh my god you people are nothing but a bunch of hippies! Get some morals, what did you people grow up with no parents?


----------



## jon_forward (Jan 23, 2004)




----------



## jimnyc (Jan 23, 2004)




----------



## Zhukov (Jan 23, 2004)

I think the role of marijuana as a 'gateway drug' originates more from the fact that we are told that all drugs are equally _bad_, then children smoke the relatively benign marijuana and wonder what other drugs their teachers and parents lied to them about. This, beyond the simple fact of who sells it and how available other types of drugs are, is I believe the basic cause of drug experimentation after trying marijuana.  Unfortunately, most drugs are not as benign as weed.

My own opinions about marijuana aside, no level of government has the right to tell me I can't grow a plant, nor does any level of government have the right to tell me what I can and can't set aflame and inhale the combusted byproducts of.  Government simply does not have these rights, nor did our founding fathers ever intend it to.  

Honestly, step back and consider that soberly: The government outlaws the cultivation of a *plant*.  Based on what authority?


----------



## Moi (Jan 23, 2004)

Clearly laws involving harmful behaviors, which could only harm the self, should and are allowed by the constitution.  That's why I don't understand seatbelt laws but I can understand child restraint ones.  

The misappropriation of other's well being by the government is just another misuse of the laws of this government.  Blame the welfare state we live in.  One of the reasons that people favor drug laws is because they don't want people killing themselves with them and/or paying for their hospital care, food, clothing, shelter, etc.  I have to think the cost of the crime surrounding the drug trade, enforcement of drug laws, etc. far outweighs this.  In the long run, if someone chooses to do heroin and doesn't have the money to eat, drink or pay for a home, I don't think the government should spend one dime on them nor should we be spending so much fighting drugs.  

If using drugs causes someone to do something stupid, let them pay the price.


----------



## nbdysfu (Jan 25, 2004)

:coffee3: 

Oh well, guess my old stance isn't very popular. That's democracy. I have no beef with homegrown or poker night.

My main problem would be Canada hypothetically choosing to make pot legally available to the US market when the US expressly has controls to prevent the use of pot because of its dangers.  

Zhukov you make a good point about pot as a "gateway drug." If it is legalized, will that do anything to change the attitude of many people who have been indoctrinated to think it is like any other bad drug? My answer would be no, and I think if pot is legalized, it really needs to be thought out how to convince people that it is in fact different from other drugs that were once its equals. Actually if this is a democracy, then I think that education will have to happen first. Once the knowledge is common, I can't see why not. Then girl scouts will start packing roaches into trailmix and selling it along with cookies .


----------

