Cali to potentially legalize marijuana for everyone.

[Fishbone Jones]

Yes, because anti-marijuana laws and Ontario's new anti-smoking laws are so "draconian and frivilous" (spelt frivolous).

Nope. I'm talking about all you meddling liebrals that keep sticking your hand in my pocket and coming up with new laws and bans that infringe on  everyone, but never really seem to get to the root cause of the problem. Be it pit bulls, street racing, helmets, handguns, smoking or drinking, just to name a few. You think by making new laws and bans the problems will go away. Go babysit some third world country. I'm free and have a brain. I don't need the McGuintyites in Moronto telling me what's good for me.

If you have to draw attention to my single spelling mistake to divert attention from your sorry ass excuse for dictating our behavior, you've more than made my point for me.

Sorry, but if that isn't pro-smoke then you need a new vocabulary to articulate what you meant in your last sentence.

It's nothing of the sort. See my above response. Crawl out of your Bantario utopian mindset and try comprehending the Queen's english and its, oh so subtle, nuances. I'm no expert in it either, but I make do, with the odd, frivilous [sic] error. If you really need me to explain in plain black and white, grade school vocabulary what I really think of meddling socialist bastards, feel free to PM me, but my response likely won't be within the site guidelines.

In one sentence you called anti-smoking/anti-marijuana laws "cruel" and "ridiculous".

Cruel and ridiculous? Sorry, must have been on one of those cigarette THC induce trips. You'll have to point out where I said that here. Perhaps someone else is high? :
As a final, and I mean final, point to you, I indulge in neither forms of smoke.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Why is it we do this same thread every 3 months?

Because some people live in hope of decriminalization.  And I suspect, in their wee minds, it'll be like tobacco and not regulated as much as alcohol.  They dream of smoke breaks where they head out to the little shelters all over our bases and fire up a joint, probably one made in an Indian rolling factory that they bought in a parking lot to avoid new government taxes.  But that's okay, because with decriminalization, they won't be "forced" to deal with criminals just to smoke a little cannabis.

 

[Jungle]

In 21 years of dealing with the skidmarks on the highway of life I can tell you that so far "Jungle" is the only person in this thread that has made a post that reflects the harsh realities of the drug curve...........

That's niether a study, a quote, a poll nor "scientific test",....thats just what I hear/see over and over and over and....

I doubt that pilots or Cpls have to interview a kid to tell him he tested positive for illegal drugs, and see him collapse in the office as his life is a mess... Bruce, you and I have similar experience in this regard.

Anyway, the reason the Military will not allow it's members to use cannabis is this fact:

Research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.

From this site: http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

Now someone may get plastered on saturday night, and be fully alert and functional on monday morning; apparently the same is not true of cannabis...

Now regarding the Netherlands, cannabis is not entirely legalized there either; here are a couple of extracts from the wiki page regarding Dutch legislation on cannabis:

In the last few years certain strains of cannabis with higher concentrations of THC and drug tourism have challenged the current policy and led to a re-examination of the current approach.

Netherlands has a high anti-drug related public expenditure, the second highest drug related public expenditure per capita of all countries in EU (after Sweden). 75% is law enforcement expenditures including police, army, law courts, prisons, customs and finance guards. 25% is health and social care expenditures including treatment, harm reduction, health research and educational including prevention and social affairs interventions.

Large-scale dealing, production, import and export are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, even if this does not supply end users or coffeeshops with more than the allowed amounts. Exactly how coffeeshops get their supplies is rarely investigated, however. The average concentration of THC in the cannabis sold in coffeeshops has increased from 9% 1998 to 18% in 2005. One of the reasons is plant breeding and use of greenhouse technology for illegal growing of cannabis in Netherlands. The recent minister of Justice Piet Hein Donner announced in June 2007 that cultivation of cannabis shall continue to be illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

Not exactly a huge success; and if you get a chance to talk with Dutch Military personnel, you will notice that the members of their Armed Forces are forbidden, like us, to use cannabis like all illegal drugs.

 

[mariomike]

I think that I know exactly what you're saying, but explanation/confirmation would be nice.

It's hard to answer because I never tried marijuana. The only reason I did not is because it was illegal. I'll spare our readers the boring old stories of Queen West, but because of that, I hope they never make marijuana, or any narcotic legal in Canada.

 

[the 48th regulator]

In 21 years of dealing with the skidmarks on the highway of life I can tell you that so far "Jungle" is the only person in this thread that has made a post that reflects the harsh realities of the drug curve...........

That's niether a study, a quote, a poll nor "scientific test",....thats just what I hear/see over and over and over and....



Why is it we do this same thread every 3 months?

Interesting statement.

These are the Stats with regards to those that have a license to use Medicinal MJ.  It would be interesting to see how many turned to hard drugs and crime from that group.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/stat/index-eng.php

I will start doing search, seeing what I can come up with.

dileas

tess

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Don't forget to cross reference that with the known number of incarcerates who fall into the following groups also. [since you seem to have missed what I said about my post being 'real life" learnings, not studies, etc...]

Patient Eligibility
The Regulations outline two categories of people who can apply to possess marihuana for medical purposes.

Category 1: This category is comprised of any symptoms treated within the context of providing compassionate end-of-life care; or the symptoms associated with the specified medical conditions listed in the schedule to the Regulations, namely:

Severe pain and/or persistent muscle spasms from multiple sclerosis;
Severe pain and/or persistent muscle spasms from a spinal cord injury;
Severe pain and/or persistent muscle spasms from spinal cord disease;
Severe pain, cachexia, anorexia, weight loss, and/or severe nausea from cancer;
Severe pain, cachexia, anorexia, weight loss, and/or severe nausea from HIV/AIDS infection;
Severe pain from severe forms of arthritis; or
Seizures from epilepsy.
Applicants must provide a declaration from a medical practitioner to support their application.

Category 2: This category is for applicants who have debilitating symptom(s) of medical condition(s), other than those described in Category 1. Under Category 2, persons with debilitating symptoms can apply to obtain an Authorization to Possess dried marihuana for medical purposes, if a specialist confirms the diagnosis and that conventional treatments have failed or judged inappropriate to relieve symptoms of the medical condition. While an assessment of the applicant's case by a specialist is required, the treating physician, whether or not a specialist, can sign the medical declaration.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Not exactly a huge success; and if you get a chance to talk with Dutch Military personnel, you will notice that the members of their Armed Forces are forbidden, like us, to use cannabis like all illegal drugs.

Never suggested our military should allow it. But I think it should be allowed in Canada (ie: the General Population).  Tax it, just like cigarettes and alcohol.

 

[Brasidas]

Interesting statement.

These are the Stats with regards to those that have a license to use Medicinal MJ.  It would be interesting to see how many turned to hard drugs and crime from that group.

I'm not sure how great a sample group that would be. Given that the eligible groups include folks that're in severe pain or under "compassionate end-of-life care", they may attempt to self-medicate with harder drugs. Whereas a more general pot user may not have the same motivations.

 

[armyvern]

I'm not sure how great a sample group that would be. Given that the eligible groups include folks that're in severe pain or under "compassionate end-of-life care", they may attempt to self-medicate with harder drugs. Whereas a more general pot user may not have the same motivations.

Or, because of their debilitation and pain --- may be less susceptable to going out and committing other crimes than other members of the populace.

 

[mellian]

Which is a moot point given that we're discussing WHY they affect the ability of someone to do their job.

Really? I thought we were discussing whether marijuana should be legalized in reference to California possibly doing so.

In regards to their job, military or civilian, including driving or piloting in general, I say alcohol and marijuana should both be banned. If marijuana gets legalized in Canada or at least decriminalized, I still say they should both be banned, yet chances are alcohol will still be somewhat allowed while in the CF during off duty outside of the 12 hours limit while pot is still completely banned which at that point would be hypocricy. Right now it is not because pot is illegal.

Geez, that's exactly what I need when the bullets start flying unannounced --- someone mellower, slow, relaxed and lazy.

You seem to erroneously think I am supporting marijuana use in the military, when I said it should just be legalized in Canada for general populace use like alcohol is presently.

Irregardless, there's a reason alcohol is prohibited 12 hours prior to work and zero tolerance in most theatre AORs these days.

It should be zero tolerance for alcohol in general, like marijuana.

Most people speed too, should we make that legal?

That is a strawman. People speeding increases the risks of harm of people, while legalizing and properly regulating marijuana for general population use would decrease the harm of people while allowing the justice system and police to focus more on actual crimes.

You do realize of course, that as (if/when) a member of the CF, your group of weed-smoking friends and days on the protest line will have to end yes? This may also carry with it the ability to affect you "passing/maintaining a security screening". It will be against CF regulations for you to be present when illegal activity is occuring ... and, as a CF member you are actually obligated to report it. Just thought you should know that. The CF is, for a reason (a legally "bonified reason" at that), a WHOLE different lifestyle than that which you have thus far experienced.

Ad hominem and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and also prone to cause the thread twirl downwards to closure with it being somehow completely and exclusively hundred percent all my fault.

It ain't just a job - it's a lifestyle.

Here I thought life would be generally the same.

 

[Stukov]

Just out of curiosity, suppose we legalize marijuana.
What do all the various people currently running grow ops do ?

Do they:

A) Say, "aw shucks" and shut their operations down ?

B) Become legitimate, pot-selling business people (assuming that option is open to them) and deal with the paperwork, taxes, and various other headaches and hassle that other small business owners are put through ?

or

C) Simply start pushing their product more to people who would still not be able to purchase pot legally ?
Like underage kids for example.

D) Run out of funds for their current level of operation, resorting to either extremely low levels of operation (equivalent to bootleggers after the ban was removed) or leaving the market entirely to competitors with a higher standard of safety and quality (the government). Kids find ways to get liquor from the LCBO without resorting to bums downtown for alcohol, they'll find a way to get some pot from the "CCBO".

 

[the 48th regulator]

Well I have to step away from this thread.

Bruce and Jungle,

I unfortunately can not find statistics, or compare my experience to both of yours,  so that I may counter your argument.

I shall step away, and post where I can offer input.

dileas

tess

 

[Fishbone Jones]

D) Run out of funds for their current level of operation, resorting to either extremely low levels of operation (equivalent to bootleggers after the ban was removed) or leaving the market entirely to competitors with a higher standard of safety and quality (the government).

E) Continue to grow and ship our high grade weed across the border, where it is still illegal, in trade for manufactured drugs and guns, just like they are doing now. Except they would likely receive a lighter sentence, if caught growing, because it would equate to running your own still.

F) Continue to grow and sell it here, because there is no way the government sanctioned weed is going to equate to the high intensity bud found from grow ops. Think near beer and Triple X :blotto:

 

[Brasidas]

Or, because of their debilitation and pain --- may be less susceptable to going out and committing other crimes than other members of the populace.

More reason why they're still not representative of the general population. They're a valid test group for studying some health effects, but I don't see palliative and severe chronic pain patients being likely to make the same choices as the run of the mill pot users.

 

[armyvern]

Really? I thought we were discussing whether marijuana should be legalized in reference to California possibly doing so.

Apparently you too missed all the bits about how this turned into an "in Canada" discussion.

In regards to their job, military or civilian, including driving or piloting in general, I say alcohol and marijuana should both be banned. If marijuana gets legalized in Canada or at least decriminalized, I still say they should both be banned, yet chances are alcohol will still be somewhat allowed while in the CF during off duty outside of the 12 hours limit while pot is still completely banned which at that point would be hypocricy. Right now it is not because pot is illegal.

You seem to erroneously think I am supporting marijuana use in the military, when I said it should just be legalized in Canada for general populace use like alcohol is presently.

I didn't say that you said anything about the CF being able to use it or that you were pro-that, I simply disagree with you that it should be (or that a majority thinks it should be) legalized in Canada. I think that's pretty obvious in my previous posts asking for those "facts of majority" to be posted. Someone else has already posted the study showing that weed affected one's long term capability to perform mentally long after the immediate after effects had worn off - shown not to be the case with alcohol.

It should be zero tolerance for alcohol in general, like marijuana.

If that's made the law, then it's made the law, not withstanding the study previously mentioned as having been mentionned on this thread.

That is a strawman. People speeding increases the risks of harm of people, while legalizing and properly regulating marijuana for general population use would decrease the harm of people while allowing the justice system and police to focus more on actual crimes.

Wow. Not deterring it's use would somehow decrease harm to people? That's a first in my books.

What is a strawman is continuosly backing up claims of it should be legalized (as some are here doing) based upon - "most of my friends do it", most Canadians want it/do it) etc etc. Perhaps it's the majority of the friends you keep? It's not what the majority of pers that I hang about with do/want ... nor is it the majority belief in my family etc who are not related to the military.

Ad hominem and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and also prone to cause the thread twirl downwards to closure with it being somehow completely and exclusively hundred percent all my fault.

Here I thought life would be generally the same.

Ad Hominem my ass. But here we go again ... Quite frankly, since you've joined this site YOU have spoken of your desire to keep somehow attached to protests, have expressed your anti-LEO stance in many a varied form lending to make them out into some kind of "oppresive force" and have in this very thread stated publicly and in writing that you hang out with pers who protest (not always peacefully), do drugs, etc etc.

I simply pointed out to you (just as others had to in your protest threads) that continuing to do such after you enrolled would be a service offense and has the ability to affect your ability to get/maintain a security clearance. Sorry you don't like that fact, but it is a fact. Pointing that out to you, and the possible reprecussions of such activity is NOT an ad hominem attack ... it's pointing out something to you that you just don't seem to want to accept because you seem to be still carrying on believing that "life will generally be the same". It ain't. We don't say "It's a lifestyle" for nothing.

Your continued cries of "woe is me" are becoming very stale. We have rules we get to play by in this outfit --- and as soon as you join, those rules apply to you too because in your very own words "you're not special."

 

[Stukov]

E) Continue to grow and ship our high grade weed across the border, where it is still illegal, in trade for manufactured drugs and guns, just like they are doing now. Except they would likely receive a lighter sentence, if caught growing, because it would equate to running your own still.

Chances are Canada would not legalize until the United States does. UN drug policy is US drug policy.

F) Continue to grow and sell it here, because there is no way the government sanctioned weed is going to equate to the high intensity bud found from grow ops. Think near beer and Triple X :blotto:

What can I say to that 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Here I thought life would be generally the same.

I sure hope this is sarcasm and your just not very good at this hard to grasp ability.......

[I posted this right after Mellian posted but when I came back I had the 'error' screen so here it is again though just a little late]

 

[Journeyman]

Are people drinking while at work? Do they show up to work drunk?

I'm sure rules are in place in Holland that prevent people from smoking a joint or showing up stoned.

Well, again, merely anecdotal (since there were no Senators with me at the time and this incident did not occur in California)..... I had the good fortune to be doing some freefall parachuting with the Dutch Marines (thank you again RNMC MGen C  :nod:  ).

While Dutch troops are legally forbidden from smoking dope, some still do (about half a dozen that I saw, anyway).

Getting ready for a jump, the JumpMaster briefing included the caveat "we ask that you not drink during this operation." (WTF??) Two Dutch guys had cans of beer in hand while waiting for the plane. No one thought it was out of the ordinary. When asked, the concern is apparently that getting the 'chutes sticky from spilled beer pisses off the Riggers; it has nothing to do with the jumpers' competency.

Common sense isn't common, and I was very happy that a Brit did my JM check!

 

[mellian]

Apparently you too missed all the bits about how this turned into an "in Canada" discussion.

That is what I am saying...

"Really? I thought we were discussing whether marijuana should be legalized in reference to California possibly doing so."

I didn't say that you said anything about the CF being able to use it or that you were pro-that, I simply disagree with you that it should be (or that a majority thinks it should be) legalized in Canada. I think that's pretty obvious in my previous posts asking for those "facts of majority" to be posted. Someone else has already posted the study showing that weed affected one's long term capability to perform mentally long after the immediate after effects had worn off - shown not to be the case with alcohol.

That no different with alcohol.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=alcohol+memory+loss&hl=en
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=alcohol+nerve+damage
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=alcohol+mental+effects
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=alcohol

Memory loss is associated to alcohol as well, a long with some long term effects.

If that's made the law, then it's made the law, not withstanding the study previously mentioned as having been mentionned on this thread.

Which does not change my opinion that there should be zero-tolerance on alcohol in the Canadian Forces, a long with the present zero-tolerance of marijuana in the CF, whether or not it becomes legalized in Canada.

To summarize my opinions:

- Marijuana should be legalized in Canada for general populace use
- Marijuana should be banned and zero-tolerance in the Canadian Forces
- Alcohol should be banned and zero-tolerance in the Canadian Forces (like no more Basic Up episodes of recruits mentioning at some point how they want to get drunk over the holidays or some weekend. Or news articles of CF members get into drunken bar fights).
- Marijuana and Alcohol should be banned and zero-tolerance in any police or intelligence or military or border services as well (No more articles of police officers drinking and having alcohol party fest after long day of work. Or an RCMP officer drinking bottle of vodka every two days and then get charged for assaulting their spouse).

Are we on the same page yet of what I am actually saying...? 

Wow. Not deterring it's use would somehow decrease harm to people? That's a first in my books.

What is a strawman is continuosly backing up claims of it should be legalized (as some are here doing) based upon - "most of my friends do it", most Canadians want it/do it) etc etc. Perhaps it's the majority of the friends you keep? It's not what the majority of pers that I hang about with do/want ... nor is it the majority belief in my family etc who are not related to the military.

Hence my observations of life in general (as in not just with friends in parties or protest lines) how prevalent pot is these days in the civilian world outside of the Canadian Forces. If I can walk near or at Parliament Hill and smell whiff of pot (no matter who smoked it on any regular day or night of the year), the "war on pot" as long been lost. Even if I avoid my friends who smoke pot (and call the police on them as you seem to suggest), I will still somehow end up having THC levels in my blood from some random second hand smoke.

If we failed at deterring, and there is plenty of evidence of not being any more harmful than alcohol, then we are better off for the sake of the people and resources wise to legalizing and regulating. Bringing out strawmans and slippery slope arguments not going to change that fact. 

Ad Hominem my ***. But here we go again ... *snip* Pointing that out to you, and the possible reprecussions of such activity is NOT an ad hominem attack ... it's pointing out something to you that you just don't seem to want to accept because you seem to be still carrying on believing that "life will generally be the same". It ain't. We don't say "It's a lifestyle" for nothing.

If you want to talk about me or give me advice, do so in PM or in another thread as it is off-topic in this one. If you do not like those conditions, talk to the Directing Staff. 

Your continued cries of "woe is me" are becoming very stale. We have rules we get to play by in this outfit --- and as soon as you join, those rules apply to you too because in your very own words "you're not special."

Then follow the rules of the message board with me and PM me or start another thread, and I will gladly discuss it with you. 

I sure hope this is sarcasm and your just not very good at this hard to grasp ability.......

Of course it is sarcasm, and sorry if my sarcastic tone does translate well over text. I will make sure to use a smiley next time.

 

[aesop081]

Then follow the rules of the message board

Maybe you should start following your own advice. "behaving" my ass....... :

I will make sure to use a smiley next time.

I will take the warning......

You ma'am, are an idiot.