|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Watch out, Canada... YOU'RE NEXT!
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Shalome
Muahahahahahah!
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet...20021213/UMARIN
"It's not my job to judge Canadian policy," Mr. Walters (the US "Drug Czar") said. "But it is my job to protect Americans from dangerous threats, and right now Canada is a dangerous staging area for some of the most potent and dangerous marijuana at a time when marijuana is the single biggest source of dependency-production in the United States."
Posted by: redwench
 Quote:
Originally posted by Shalome
"marijuana is the single biggest source of dependency-production in the United States."
|
the man is the drug czar, and never heard of alcohol and cigarettes? ye gods.
Posted by: Erekose
whoa wait a minute he's the 'drug' czar red. we all know those are not drugs... silly woman
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
the man is the drug czar, and never heard of alcohol and cigarettes? ye gods.
|
He means drugs that the government doesn't collect taxes off of.
As far as I'm concerned, the US gov't can go **** themselves on this topic. Anyone with a shred of common sense knows that drugs won the drug war.
Our government has a very simple reason for their potential decision (because, yes, despite the US's posturing and sabre rattling, we haven't actually made the decision yet), and that reason is the fact that almost a billion dollars a year is wasted trying to enforce the laws against pot. And considering at worst, pot is as harmful as an average of cigarettes and alcohol (most direct harm is to the smoker, and the potential of being under an influence is about the same as alcohol), there is no real reason to waste that money.
The US government would be better off if they were to follow our lead, rather than trying to force our decisions in a direction they prefer.
Posted by: Null Actor
Here's a good summation:
Quote:
|
"Smoking any amount of marijuana is unhealthy, but the consequences of conviction for a small amount of marijuana for personal use are disproportionate to the potential harm," said Liberal MP Paddy Torsney, who chaired the committee.
|
That sums up the truth right there. The potential harm is disproportionate to the current laws.
Posted by: Gunslinger
I think it should be legalized and taxed here anyway, but unfortunately, I don't have a Senate vote.
I mean, really. Wouldn't that be a decent sized plus to the economy if you could make a legitimate import/export operation out of something that costs a billion a year to try and prevent, and then tax the hell out of it?
Forget that I don't care what other people do to themselves--it can be a source of income for the economy. It could even create jobs.
Back on topic, though: The guy who was quoted is a bonehead. He, as was said, is just rattling his sabre to make it look as if he's actually doing his job.
Posted by: redwench
he didnt say anything about drugs. he claimed that marijuana is the biggest source of dependency production in the US. which is so plainly false, an idiot could see it. if it were true, the entire drug war would be pointless. oh, wait, it is.........
Posted by: Gunslinger
So what does he propose to do, crop dust canada with Weed-b-gone?
yuk yuk yuk
Posted by: Shalome
That's what we do in Latin America.
Posted by: Null Actor
30 grams though. That's one hell of a party.
Posted by: redwench
i can think of a couple people that would go through that in a few days.
Posted by: Null Actor
http://www.msnbc.com/news/848154.asp?0cv=HB10&cp1=1
I'm sure that the decline is because of the drug war. Yup. Uh-huh. No doot aboot it.
Posted by: Spider
*incessant giggling*
Posted by: PMS GURL
30 grams? to my friends, thatd be gone in less then 6 hours
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
There's something to be proud of.
Posted by: PMS GURL
hey, i didnt say i do it did i? didnt think so and if i was to do it, i'd feel like the best loser in the world no offense tho.
but its all good, i have epilesey which makes it so i can legally smoke it but i decided not to.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Don't get too defensive ... he was talking about your friend 
Posted by: scorpion_gold
The US government has always seemed to follow this policy: "If you can't beat 'em, tax 'em!"
that was the first thing my history teacher taught me last year. and how true it is.
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
i must be one of the few people who don't smoke weed 
i say legalize the hell out of it though. i honestly think we would be a lot better off.
Posted by: PMS GURL
yea, just what i want, some guy driving beside me trippin' out..... NO THANKS
Posted by: Cheese
Yea, because it's legal to drink in your car too...
Posted by: The_Druidess
I don't know about "tripping out" thats normally a heavier drugs thing but I think they should make it legal and claw part way out of the HUGE dept we call life . If I could I woulda voted Denis Leery he wanted to make pot and hoes legal ,would both be a profit and keep some things cleaner *bleh* But ah ya ill shut up now and let you all carry on youre debate hf gl .
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Quote:
Originally posted by scorpion_gold
The US government has always seemed to follow this policy: "If you can't beat 'em, tax 'em!"
|
Unless, of course, the people who make and sell the stuff are making it worth your while to keep the stuff illegal so they can jack the price on their black-market commodities up to whatever the unregulated market will bear. . .
Posted by: J_Monk
I'm Canadian and i'll be the first to say this is a load of horse****. There will still be laws around it, including the amount of weed allowed in your system when driving so I wouldn't worry about it. The worst that can result from the passing of this law is a shortage of junk food at the local convenience stores :P
Posted by: Spider
How much is in your system when driving? How praytell will they measure that?
Posted by: Bored
Prickly little blood tests or urine samples. And it stays for up to 30 days too.
Posted by: J_Monk
I'm sure what they'll do is if they pull you over for driving while stoned over the legal limit they'll do some of those tests... say the alphabet backwards, walk a straight line etc... and if you fail them or the officer has reasonable suspicion that your over the limit he'll take you in, and do those tests that take a longer time, such as blood and urine tests.
Posted by: Spider
Quote:
Originally posted by Bored
Prickly little blood tests or urine samples. And it stays for up to 30 days too.
|
Yeah, but I'm fairly sure they can't tell when specifically it was in your system. So if you smoked anytime in the last month, get pulled over, take a drop, it's going to show up positive if you were high or not.
Posted by: redwench
they dont care if it shows up in your system if its legal. only if its over a particular amount. but monk is correct, they would do the standard tests for impaired driving. only if you failed those would they drag you in for testing.
Posted by: Iownyourmom
i dont care, i dont smoke, not gonna smoke, not gonna care
|
|
|
|
|
