Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All encompassing recreational cannabis discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Edmonton PRT
    Pot may have been a prohibited substance but that would not prevent the government to do more research over the past decade
    You're just flat out wrong: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756634

    Many psychoactive drugs are used recreationally, particularly by young people. This use and its perceived dangers have led to many different classes of drugs being banned under national laws and international conventions. Indeed, the possession of cannabis, 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (MDMA; also known as ecstasy) and psychedelics is stringently regulated. An important and unfortunate outcome of the controls placed on these and other psychoactive drugs is that they make research into their mechanisms of action and potential therapeutic uses - for example, in depression and post-traumatic stress disorder - difficult and in many cases almost impossible.
    Nutt is not some crackpot, he's an incredibly accomplished researcher in the field.

    Originally posted by Edmonton PRT
    We don't even know if smoking it causes cancer.
    There's some research on that, but admittedly it's conflicting. However, that would lead one to believe that it's not a huge risk factor for lung cancer, at least compared to tobacco. That said, smoking cannabis does cause other lung issues, no question.

    We know for a fact that alcohol increases the chances of getting numerous types of cancer, as well as a bunch of other diseases. It's clear that cannabis is far less harmful to individuals and society than either alcohol or tobacco, even with current research (again, Nutt): https://www.vox.com/2015/2/24/8094759/alcohol-marijuana

    You could easily argue that society would be far better served by further cracking down on tobacco and alcohol, by for example banning or severely curtailing alcohol advertising and sponsorship, than by trying to reduce cannabis consumption. I mean, you use big bad business as a cudgel against cannabis repeatedly. The global alcohol industry is absolutely enormous, yet I've heard nary a peep from you about how we need to crack down on it despite all the societal damage alcohol causes.

    Originally posted by Edmonton PRT
    I believe that legalization is a zero sum game with no profit for the government after you factor in the healthcare and social costs.
    That defies logic. People are consuming cannabis whether it's legal or not. Legalization does not have a significant impact on usage, and that's the only "zero sum" in the equation. It does however, generate significant government revenue that would otherwise remain in the hands of criminals and criminal organization.

    Originally posted by Edmonton PRT
    I don't have a magic solution but agree that the genie is out of the bottle.
    You're offering either no solution at all, or the status quo, which everyone can agree wasn't working. You've really thought this through!

    Originally posted by Edmonton PRT
    IHMO, The government should have done more research up front a decade ago, funded school education programs and set up national standards and laws to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers and opposing regulations.
    Research was addressed above.

    School education programs like DARE have been shown to be totally ineffective, if not outright harmful. I got more useful information on drugs on the early mid-90's internet than I ever did from DARE. If you were talking about the equivalent of proper sex education, IE: telling kids about the ACTUAL relative harms of different drugs and not just scare mongering, using clean equipment, taking advantage of testing stations at festivals etc then sure I'd be all for that, but you and I both know that's absolutely not what you're advocating.

    What the hell do interprovincial trade barriers and "opposing" regulations have to do with anything. Now you're just throwing out random phrases to sound like you have a point.

    Originally posted by Edmonton PRT
    To me, this whole process was delayed by previous governments then rushed by the liberals to fulfill an election promise and to appease investors and big business.
    There's no need for some sort of conspiracy theory. The status quo is powerful, and had long viewed cannabis as a drug of choice for minorities and unsavourables. Ergo, government was all too happy to keep it illegal and use it when convenient to beat those groups over the head with. But thankfully common sense in the general populace finally started to take hold once a bunch of white middle and upper class kids started smoking it in the 60's and 70's, but even then it took decades until government had no choice but to make a change.

    After that, of course big business is going to want to cash in. That's no different than any other industry, whether that be the internet, or clean energy, or whatever else. Yet you're showing your true colors and vilifying that because you think cannabis is a wicked, immoral drug. But even you know you'd sound like a caveman advocating for a crack down, so instead you advocate in a roundabout way for the old status quo.

    Sorry man, you really didn't make a single cogent point.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 24-01-2020, 09:13 AM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
      There's no need for some sort of conspiracy theory. The status quo is powerful, and had long viewed cannabis as a drug of choice for minorities and unsavourables. Ergo, government was all too happy to keep it illegal and use it when convenient to beat those groups over the head with. But thankfully common sense in the general populace finally started to take hold once a bunch of white middle and upper class kids started smoking it in the 60's and 70's, but even then it took decades until government had no choice but to make a change.
      We even have a park in town named for a racist, regressive individual who championed the prohibition of cannabis based on thinly-veiled racist beliefs.

      Good ol' Emily Murphy, feminist hero, unabashed racist & promoter of eugenics.

      Her conspiracy-theory thesis was that “aliens of colour” had formed a drug syndicate called The Ring to “bring about the downfall of the white race.”
      ​​​​​​​https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3...racist-monster
      Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by noodle View Post
        Armed robberies are not shoplifting.

        Are you intentionally ignorant on purpose, or is more of a hobby?
        And where did I ever mention shoplifting in my original post? I said theft. And please see below.

        Please learn to read. And then learn to comprehend.

        Theft - "In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.[1][2][3]:1092–3 The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, library theft or fraud."

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by noodle View Post

          Not gubmint weed....



          My bad, you're the ***** who says you can shoplift things under lock & key. Completely different brand of stupid & I apologizing for confusing you with Stoneman. You're your own kind of special & don't deserve to be lumped in with him.



          Apologies I got my falsehoods confused between you & Stoneman. One moralizing, strawman-constructing, talking-outta-their-*** poster is fungible with another before I've had my morning coffee.



          My deepest apologies for mislabeling you as the wrong *****. I will do my best to ensure you're allocated to the right category in the future.
          Continue to apologize. And have another joint while you're at it. Apparently it doesn't make you any less dumb.

          You are Exhibit A for laying off the stuff.
          Last edited by Stoneman; 24-01-2020, 12:40 PM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by noodle View Post

            We even have a park in town named for a racist, regressive individual who championed the prohibition of cannabis based on thinly-veiled racist beliefs.

            Good ol' Emily Murphy, feminist hero, unabashed racist & promoter of eugenics.



            https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3...racist-monster
            so in your methodology of posting, you want to get rid of Emily Murphy Park?

            ​​​​​​​you are such a ninny
            Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Edmonton PRT View Post

              so in your methodology of posting, you want to get rid of Emily Murphy Park?

              ​​​​​​​you are such a ninny
              According to Noodlebrain, everyone prior to our politically correct society should be stricken from any record of existence.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Edmonton PRT View Post

                so in your methodology of posting, you want to get rid of Emily Murphy Park?
                Where did I say that? Ye gods, you're obtuse. Kindly stop trying to put words in my mouth, especially given how terrible you are at intuiting anything about me or my thought process. Every time you try you fail & look even more foolish. And that's saying something.
                Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Stoneman View Post

                  And where did I ever mention shoplifting in my original post? I said theft. And please see below.

                  Please learn to read. And then learn to comprehend.
                  Apologies, as I stated I got you & PRT mixed up.

                  You're the goofball who considers one guy & his buddies "rampant".

                  My bad, I truly apologize for labeling you with the wrong idiocy. You're still a disingenuous dullard, just not how I said previously.

                  Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by noodle View Post

                    Where did I say that? Ye gods, you're obtuse. Kindly stop trying to put words in my mouth, especially given how terrible you are at intuiting anything about me or my thought process. Every time you try you fail & look even more foolish. And that's saying something.
                    well now you know how it feels when you use conjecture and jumping to conclusions on something one did not say and attribute statements of others to try to assassinate their character.

                    no one believes your apologies where in just 24 hours you have repeatedly used those tactics and then give snarky and thinly veiled criticisms.

                    Noodle, you are turning into H.L. and MrOilers

                    sad, so sad
                    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by noodle View Post

                      Apologies, as I stated I got you & PRT mixed up.

                      You're the goofball who considers one guy & his buddies "rampant".

                      My bad, I truly apologize for labeling you with the wrong idiocy. You're still a disingenuous dullard, just not how I said previously.
                      Way to move the goalposts. First, there was the accusation of no proof any "theft".

                      Now, since you're been proven to be incoherent on that regard, you move over to "rampant."

                      I would say 60 charges is fairly rampant.

                      "The first reported robbery took place on Dec. 1 at a cannabis store near 69 Street and 76 Avenue. Police said a man entered the store, threatened staff with a weapon and then make off with cash, cannabis and related products.

                      Over the course of several weeks, police responded to similar robberies taking place at other cannabis stores with the most recent taking place on Jan. 6.

                      In each of these cases, police said the primary suspect — along with a different accomplice — would continue the pattern of threatening staff with a weapon and in some cases, employees would be assaulted.


                      Sounds rampant enough to me.

                      Go have another joint with your new buddy, the statue of Emily. I'm sure you could have an en"light"ening conversation with her.


                      And you probably wouldn't have to apologize as much.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Edmonton PRT View Post

                        well now you know how it feels when you use conjecture and jumping to conclusions on something one did not say and attribute statements of others to try to assassinate their character.
                        Once again, I apologize that I thought you were the other completely inane & reactionary poster. Mea culpa, I beg your forgiveness.



                        Originally posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
                        no one believes your apologies where in just 24 hours you have repeatedly used those tactics and then give snarky and thinly veiled criticisms.
                        If you think I'm really 100% serious about my obviously facetious apologies, you're even more brokebrained than I thought.

                        Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stoneman View Post
                          I would say 60 charges is fairly rampant.

                          "The first reported robbery took place on Dec. 1 at a cannabis store near 69 Street and 76 Avenue. Police said a man entered the store, threatened staff with a weapon and then make off with cash, cannabis and related products.

                          Over the course of several weeks, police responded to similar robberies taking place at other cannabis stores with the most recent taking place on Jan. 6.

                          In each of these cases, police said the primary suspect — along with a different accomplice — would continue the pattern of threatening staff with a weapon and in some cases, employees would be assaulted.
                          Literally one guy with his buddies. And it doesn't take much to rack up 60 charges across 4 incidents.

                          Originally posted by Stoneman View Post
                          Sounds rampant enough to me.
                          One dude & his pals is hardly a rampant crime spree.


                          Originally posted by Stoneman View Post
                          Go have another joint with your new buddy, the statue of Emily. I'm sure you could have an en"light"ening conversation with her. And you probably wouldn't have to apologize as much.
                          What are you even trying to say here? Somehow by posting Emily's history I'm simultaneously advocating for her name to be pulled from her park while also being her buddy? How does that even make sense? And here I thought your Khadr reference was the dumbest thing you said all day. Thanks for raising the bar in lowered expectations.


                          Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by noodle View Post

                            Once again, I apologize that I thought you were the other completely inane & reactionary poster. Mea culpa, I beg your forgiveness.





                            If you think I'm really 100% serious about my obviously facetious apologies, you're even more brokebrained than I thought.
                            Glad you admit you're a phoney.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by noodle View Post

                              Literally one guy with his buddies. And it doesn't take much to rack up 60 charges across 4 incidents.



                              One dude & his pals is hardly a rampant crime spree.




                              What are you even trying to say here? Somehow by posting Emily's history I'm simultaneously advocating for her name to be pulled from her park while also being her buddy? How does that even make sense? And here I thought your Khadr reference was the dumbest thing you said all day. Thanks for raising the bar in lowered expectations.

                              When the robberies are multiple times in a short period of time, that is rampant.

                              And I'm hoping you can convince Emily that she should try some of your dope. And then rant to her about how unfair she was over 100 year ago.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stoneman View Post

                                Glad you admit you're a phoney.
                                Only when it comes with dealing with people blindly wielding weaponized ignorance such as yourself & PRT.
                                Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X