# Cali to potentially legalize marijuana for everyone.



## adaminc (2 Jul 2008)

It seems there is an initiative in the works to legalize marijuana for everyone in California, and also to tax the sale and growing. I provided a link to an article on it.

http://laist.com/2008/06/30/california_to_legalize_weed_for_eve_1.php


----------



## chrisf (2 Jul 2008)

Does there exist any posistive road-side test for the effects of marijuana with the exception of blood testing?


----------



## wannabe SF member (2 Jul 2008)

If this happens, The USA will see the greatest internal migration of potheads and hippies in the history of mankind.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jul 2008)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Does there exist any posistive road-side test for the effects of marijuana with the exception of blood testing?



Police only have to hold a twinkie up to the window and see what happens...... ;D


----------



## chrisf (2 Jul 2008)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> If this happens, The USA will see the greatest internal migration potheads and hippies in the history of mankind.



From where? Aren't these the same folks that voted in the governator already?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (2 Jul 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Police only have to hold a twinkie up to the window and see what happens...... ;D



Or tell said Driver to stare at his hands.... if he takes longer than 30 seconds and is giggling the whole time or amazed... he's not good to drive


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Jul 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC7iIttp6cY

Ah, what the heck.

It doesn't snow there....

dileas

tess


----------



## adaminc (3 Jul 2008)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Does there exist any posistive road-side test for the effects of marijuana with the exception of blood testing?



I don't know for sure, but I do think that if someone were to use pot by smoking a joint or using a vaporizer, there would be residue in his lungs that might be expelled with normal breathing. So a new kind of breathalyzer, like a modified bomb testing device, could be used to look for THC in certain quantities maybe?


----------



## armyvern (3 Jul 2008)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Does there exist any posistive road-side test for the effects of marijuana with the exception of blood testing?



Apparently not a roadside test, but effective today actually - drug testing can be done at the police station by "drug evaluations experts":

http://employeedrugtesting.wordpress.com/



> Drugged Driving - New Laws - July 2008
> June 19, 2008 by pcholakis
> Police get new powers to test drivers for drugs
> Drinking and driving penalties also going up
> ...


----------



## geo (3 Jul 2008)

well... impaired IS impaired.

If California gives it's blessing I can see a couple of things happening....
- Federal money for a multitude of projects would suddenly dry up - real fast AND
- supreme court challenge


----------



## adaminc (4 Jul 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> well... impaired IS impaired.
> 
> If California gives it's blessing I can see a couple of things happening....
> - Federal money for a multitude of projects would suddenly dry up - real fast AND
> - supreme court challenge



They might be able to offset that Federal money with taxes on pot.


----------



## geo (4 Jul 2008)

Face it, if the Feds want to make California's life miserable, they can very easily do it.
I do not see one state of the Union striking off on it's own in such a radical manner.


----------



## silverbirdtank (9 Jan 2010)

potentially under Bush or similar presidents that line of thinking would be correct but Obama has stated that he doesn't want to waste federal money going after state approved medical marijuana users, this may be no different.

"Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. directed federal prosecutors Monday to back away from pursuing cases against medical marijuana patients"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101903638.html

"Obama Orders Medical Marijuana Use Allowed Where State Law Makes it Legal"

http://www.psa-rising.com/blog/2009/10/feds-halt-medical-marijuana-prosectutions/

This along with the overwhelming amount of facts supporting the idea that legalizing marijuana would be better for society than continued prohibition which makes criminals out of harmless people, funds organized crime (I mean if you want to talk about marijuana funding organized crime and illegal immigration look no further than Cali), forces the people who choose to enjoy it to associate with criminals (drug dealers), causes a burden on the justice system and robs the government of tax money might be enough to hold the feds off long enough to see how it works out.

Besides at the end of the day it really should be about what the majority of people want.

If anyone has a problem with some of the points i've posted please refer to these quotes from the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs that made it's final recomendation after years of extensive research that Cannabis would be less harmful to a society legalized, regulated and taxed. If somebody still wants to argue I request you use sourced facts, I wont respond to random "it's a gateway", "kills braincells", "no way to test intoxication" claims as i'm not disputing any of that because the people that use those points often know very little about the subject.  I think we should be a little more progressive in todays society dealing with things in a scientifically recommended way instead of dogmaticly carrying out a proven failure of a system.

http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/pdf/senate_report_quotes.pdf


----------



## wannabe SF member (9 Jan 2010)

> continued prohibition which makes criminals out of harmless people


So simply because you consider the consumption of Marijuana harmless than the people who willingly choose to indulge in it's consumption knowing full well that it's illegal do not deserve to be punished? Rules are meant to be kept, not agreeing with the law is no excuse to break it. 



> forces the people who choose to enjoy it to associate with criminals (drug dealers)


People are forced? They can live without weed, I sure as hell do. The fact that they choose to associate with criminals forces me to question their moral standing and status as _harmless people._

Marijuana *has* been proven to cause anxiety, psychosis, depression and sleeping disorders and can occasion addiction. It is not a harmless plant.



> Besides at the end of the day it really should be about what the majority of people want.









People have been known to make mistakes in the past.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Jan 2010)

silverbirdtank said:
			
		

> Besides at the end of the day it really should be about what the majority of people want.
> 
> I think we should be a little more progressive in todays society dealing with things in a scientifically recommended way instead of dogmaticly carrying out a proven failure of a system.


Try that on your next military course.   :

The incongruous, excellent response*!

*Regarding the reply to "it really should be about what the majority of people want" comment.


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Jan 2010)

Bwahaha,

Goodwin's law in this thread...I have seen everything!

Yes, was this the people's decision?






And thanks for the lowdown of the evils of MJ....






dileas

tess


----------



## wannabe SF member (9 Jan 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Goodwin's law in this thread...I have seen everything!



Poin taken, I admit my exemple was less than imaginative. >


----------



## Dean22 (9 Jan 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Does there exist any posistive road-side test for the effects of marijuana with the exception of blood testing?



In some states of the U.S. police can take blood tests in a road stop.

Many people have complained about this since they end up with infections, etc because the police officers are untrained individuals in taking blood and it is a huge violation of your rights. I only say the last part because in these States they can take the blood test without any pre-cursors to do so (ie you seem heavily intoxicated).


Personally, I think the marijuana legalization is a step in the wrong direction. Smoking a joint can equal the same amount of THC to about 10 cigarettes just because of the method of consumption (holding THC into your lungs). We need to be increasing laws against drugs and improving laws against smoking.

I would personally love to see more enforcement in Ontario about smoking laws. People smoking on the streets can be quite the nuisance.


----------



## Loachman (9 Jan 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> The incongruous, excellent response!



Not in my view, even without the evocation of Godwin's Law.

There is no difference, really, between alcohol and marijuana - except that somebody decided that one would be legal and the other not.

Legalize it and tax it, or at least set a reasonable limit on the number of plants that anybody can grow for personal consumption. Right now we're just funding organized crime and ruining houses used as grow ops. This is absurd.

It's likely that very few more people will use it if it was legal anyway.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Jan 2010)

Bring it on, just as soon as police have a fast, reliable roadside test for pot impairment.  that includes fines for open containers.  People who would never consider rolling out of bed and hoisting a couple of double dark 'n' dirties before driving to work wouldn't think twice about blazing up first thing in the morning.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2010)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> In some states of the U.S. police can take blood tests in a road stop.
> 
> Many people have complained about this since they end up with infections, etc because the police officers are untrained individuals in taking blood and it is a huge violation of your rights. I only say the last part because in these States they can take the blood test without any pre-cursors to do so (ie you seem heavily intoxicated).
> 
> ...





			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> I would personally love to see more enforcement in Ontario about smoking laws. People smoking on the streets can be quite the nuisance.



Before you become another McGuinty zealot, proselytizing for the star chamber in Moronto, the epicentre of Bantario, you should get your facts straight.

"Smoking a joint can equal the same amount of THC to about 10 cigarettes just because of the method of consumption (holding THC into your lungs)." 

Delta-9 tetrahydracannaboid (THC), the active psychedelic in marijuana, is NOT present in tobacco cigarettes.


It's ignorant, do gooders, that don't have sufficient grasp of the facts, and kowtow to special interests and personal biases, that are fast becoming the ruination of the provinces and country. Imposing draconian and frivilous laws on the majority for their own smug self satisfaction.


----------



## wannabe SF member (9 Jan 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Not in my view, even without the evocation of Godwin's Law.
> 
> There is no difference, really, between alcohol and marijuana - except that somebody decided that one would be legal and the other not.
> 
> ...



In my post I was principally adressing the claim that people who consume marijuana do nothing wrong (since it's illegal at the present time) and I never said that alcohol and tobacco weren't harmful too. If marijuana became legal I'd have no more moral objection to it's consumption by the general populace than I have for tobacco or alcohol (or Salvia for that matter). In fact, I entirely agree with the fact that legalizing marijuana would most likely deny an importamt source of funding for organized crime.


----------



## TCBF (9 Jan 2010)

- Might as well legalize prostitution while we are at it/


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Jan 2010)

Agree completely.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Jan 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Not in my view, even without the evocation of Godwin's Law.
> 
> There is no difference, really, between alcohol and marijuana - except that somebody decided that one would be legal and the other not.
> 
> ...


I have since edited my post to reflect which part of the response I liked.

"Majority rules" is not necessarily a good thing.


----------



## silverbirdtank (9 Jan 2010)

I would hope that in the least, if my post achieved little else it would be that those people who believe marijuana should be kept illegal it's that they would read my link to quotes from the Senates Special Committee's report. Believe what you want about any particular persons opinion on a web forum but at least 'look' at what our nations "sober second thought" had to say upon extensive research into the matter. As I already said I won't respond to unsourced claims nor get into disagreements on web boards, been around long enough to know I can't change anyones opinion but maybe getting them to read something isn't to daunting a task, Thank you.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> "Majority rules" is not necessarily a good thing.



But it is the basis for democracy, what we fight for, isn't it?


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Jan 2010)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> But it is the basis for democracy, what we fight for, isn't it?



I second that....

Moe, you hawling on some of the good stuff, and not sharing??

dileas

tess


----------



## Dean22 (10 Jan 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Before you become another McGuinty zealot, proselytizing for the star chamber in Moronto, the epicentre of Bantario, you should get your facts straight.
> 
> "Smoking a joint can equal the same amount of THC to about 10 cigarettes just because of the method of consumption (holding THC into your lungs)."
> 
> ...



Sorry, I had a brain fart, I looked back at my text and it's acetaldehyde (with it's carcinogen's included) which, is found in both cigarettes and marijuana but put into the lungs heavier with a joint than a cigarette.

Also, because of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.

P.S. I did not figure you for a pro-marijuana person. Being an ex (or current?) member of the Canadian Forces which, looks down on said drugs and their users.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Jan 2010)

silverbirdtank said:
			
		

> - overwhelming amount of facts supporting the idea that legalizing marijuana would be better for society...
> - If anyone has a problem with some of the points i've posted...
> - If somebody still wants to argue I request you use sourced facts...
> - I wont respond to random "it's a gateway", "kills braincells"...
> - I won't respond to unsourced claims nor get into disagreements on web boards


Lighten up Francis, we get it. Paranoia's a drag, isn't it



> Besides at the end of the day it really should be about what the majority of people want.


I apparently missed the hoards of people demanding Parliament legalize drugs. 
I must have had my head in a bag of Doritos


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Jan 2010)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Sorry, I had a brain fart, I looked back at my text and it's acetaldehyde (with it's carcinogen's included) which, is found in both cigarettes and marijuana but put into the lungs heavier with a joint than a cigarette.
> 
> Also, because of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.
> 
> P.S. I did not figure you for a pro-marijuana person. Being an ex (or current?) member of the Canadian Forces which, looks down on said drugs and their users.




The military frowns upon those that break the laws of the land.

Free thinking, and opinions, are not illegal.

dileas

tess


----------



## Loachman (10 Jan 2010)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> But it is the basis for democracy, what we fight for, isn't it?



"Democracy" is a polite term for "mob rule".

That is why Constitutions and Charters/Bills of Rights and, ultimately, privately-owned firearms exist.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin.

And no, I don't fight for democracy.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Jan 2010)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> But it is the basis for democracy, what we fight for, isn't it?


That doesn't mean what most people want will be a good thing.  Imagine if the majority wanted to vote in Iggy as PM?   



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I second that....
> 
> Moe, you hawling on some of the good stuff, and not sharing??
> 
> ...


No, but maybe I should have been.   

I'm with JM, I haven't seen a "majority" of people demanding that marijuana be legalized in Canada...........yet.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Jan 2010)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> P.S. I did not figure you for a pro-marijuana person. Being an ex (or current?) member of the Canadian Forces which, looks down on said drugs and their users.


 That's the thing about stereotypes. You may _assume_ all CF pers are anti-marijuana. Some may be, some may not. Regular dwellers of this site, often military, may _assume_ that non-military people just come here to repeatedly post things about which they know nothing and are too lazy to research. Darn those stereotypes.


Regardless, if you actually read, and let sink in, Recceguy's response to you





> - you should *get your facts straight*.
> 
> It's* ignorant*, do gooders, that *don't have sufficient grasp of the facts*, and kowtow to *special interests * and *personal biases*, that are fast becoming the ruination of the provinces and country.


I don't see "pro-marijuana," I see "anti-stupid."


ps- I know there's no cash value for MilPoints, but are you trying to set some sort of record? *Take a hint*.


----------



## Loachman (10 Jan 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I'm with JM, I haven't seen a "majority" of people demanding that marijuana be legalized in Canada...........yet.



I don't see any larger number demanding that it be kept illegal and that its users continue to be stigmatized for no logical reason, either.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Jan 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I don't see any larger number demanding that it be kept illegal and that its users continue to be stigmatized for no logical reason, either.


This is true.  Guess you could make that argument about almost anything.  It just doesn't seem to be at the top of anyone's agenda, unlike abortion rights for instance.


----------



## Jungle (10 Jan 2010)

Yeah, I’m also with JM and Moe; people will not protest to maintain the illegal status of pot until there is a debate to legalize it.
I do not believe that cannabis is harmless. My observation is that most people I know who suffer from depression or repetitive burnouts are or have been heavy pot smokers; they also tend to believe in the most ridiculous conspiration theories and have a harder time coping with some of life’s challenges.
And yes, mild paranoia is something I observed in these persons.

But these are just my observations; I am not a scientist or a psychiatrist… or a senator !!!


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Jan 2010)

Jungle said:
			
		

> But these are just my observations; I am not a scientist or a psychiatrist… or a senator !!!


Did you sleep at a Holiday Inn last night?      ;D


----------



## Journeyman (10 Jan 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I don't see any larger number demanding that it be kept illegal and that its users continue to be stigmatized for no logical reason, either.


Come on, you know that's a spurious argument. How often do you see protesters chanting, on any issue, "Don't change the law! Don't change the law!" Seldom, if ever.

For what it's worth though, note that I haven't weighed-in on either side of the debate (and not merely because California legislators haven't asked me). 
My comments here have been directed solely at the lack of logic/structure some posters' bring to army.ca.

And yes, I do know how Sisyphus felt.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jan 2010)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Sorry, I had a brain fart, I looked back at my text and it's acetaldehyde (with it's carcinogen's included) which, is found in both cigarettes and marijuana but put into the lungs heavier with a joint than a cigarette.
> 
> Also, because of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.
> 
> P.S. I did not figure you for a pro-marijuana person. Being an ex (or current?) member of the Canadian Forces which, looks down on said drugs and their users.



Nowhere in my post did I come out for or against the issue. Try reading it again, and perhaps remember it next time you want to try curb someones legal right, to a legal activity, because you perceive it to be an inconvenience and a nuisance to yourself.


----------



## silverbirdtank (10 Jan 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I'm with JM, I haven't seen a "majority" of people demanding that marijuana be legalized in Canada...........yet.



Yes well I believe this article is about California, U.S.A..


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Jan 2010)

silverbirdtank said:
			
		

> Yes well I believe this article is about California, U.S.A..



Yes,

but very pertinent to Canadian politics.  It was not that long ago that a Federal Government, here, was going to decriminalize  MJ under certain amounts.

dileas

tess


----------



## Loachman (10 Jan 2010)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Yeah, I’m also with JM and Moe; people will not protest to maintain the illegal status of pot until there is a debate to legalize it.



Which would bring out more of the ones favouring legalization as well.

A referendum would be interesting.



			
				Jungle said:
			
		

> I do not believe that cannabis is harmless.



I do not believe that tobacco or alcohol are harmless, either, but we do not sling people into jail simply for using them.

Nor do we fund huge criminal enterprises through their bans - although, almost a century ago, that was tried and subsequently abandoned.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Jan 2010)

silverbirdtank said:
			
		

> Yes well I believe this article is about California, U.S.A..



Yes, but you brought the commentary into a Canadian context


			
				silverbirdtank said:
			
		

> Besides at the end of the day it really should be about what the majority of people want.
> 
> If anyone has a problem with some of the points i've posted please refer to these quotes from the *Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs*......


I guess you forgot that.





> *Effects of cannabis*
> Acute effects while under the influence can include euphoria, anxiety, *temporary short-term memory loss*.....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_marijuana


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Jan 2010)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Yeah, I’m also with JM and Moe; people will not protest to maintain the illegal status of pot until there is a debate to legalize it.
> I do not believe that cannabis is harmless. My observation is that most people I know who suffer from depression or repetitive burnouts are or have been heavy pot smokers; they also tend to believe in the most ridiculous conspiration theories and have a harder time coping with some of life’s challenges.
> And yes, mild paranoia is something I observed in these persons.
> 
> But these are just my observations; I am not a scientist or a psychiatrist… or a senator !!!




What have your  observations been with people that abuse alcohol?

dileas

tess


----------



## silverbirdtank (10 Jan 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes, but you brought the commentary into a Canadian contextI guess you forgot that.



You see that wasn't what they were quoting though, I was talking about how the U.S. feds may not intervene in this decision and said something along the lines of,

"but at the end of the day it's what majority of the people want" 

Then somebody commented something along the lines of "I must of missed the people calling for legalization my head must have been stuck in a dorito bag"

and then, the guy I quoted said "Neither have I in Canada, yet..."

So I was just informing you guys that in the context in which I said that I was speaking of California, I may have sourced my information on the harms of continued prohibition on a Canadian text so that we could all relate to it more but it is obvious that at that point I was speaking about the U.S.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Jan 2010)

silverbirdtank said:
			
		

> So I was just informing you guys that in the context in which I said that I was speaking of California, I may have sourced my information on the harms of continued prohibition on a Canadian text so that we could all relate to it more but it is obvious that at that point I was speaking about the U.S.


Obviously.  
But had you been actually following the discussion, everyone else had moved on, using the article as a start-point to discuss the Canadian situation. 
Thank you for your initial contribution though.


----------



## silverbirdtank (10 Jan 2010)

Here, I feel I should source this.

this shows that recent polls in California have found majority in favor of legalization, taxation and regulation. An end to prohibition and funding organized crime as well as making criminals out of people who enjoy the stuff.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4106-California-Statehouse-Examiner~y2009m5d4-Poll-shows-a-majority-of-Californians-support-legalize-marijuana

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/12/14/Pot-measure-headed-for-California-ballot/UPI-30881260844254/

I know you call this a discussion but it seems far from it, a guy could take time and source information proving that marijuana isn't that harmful to the lung, brain (although i've seen studies saying the opposite as well, none done on humans though) or body with published scientific studies from the last 3 years but people will shoot that down with their 'personal experiance' or take one quote that you say that doesn't sound right, turn it around with a little rhetoric and then disregard everything you say without glancing at information.

Maybe marijuana does turn people a little lazy or make them have a tougher time with lifes problems or maybe those are just the kinds of people that are succeptable to that, just like their are people succeptable to the effects of alcohol and turn into alcoholics. Just as some people can over indulge in food until they are lazy, tired, immobile slobs. While others can still enjoy these things moderately, I think we need to place some of the responsibility into the peoples hands not the compounds.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Jan 2010)

Hello??  Is there an echo in here??   ???

 :


----------



## silverbirdtank (10 Jan 2010)

Oh boy, I hit quote and not modify. Might as well quickly ridicule and make assumptions of me using drugs.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Jan 2010)

silverbirdtank said:
			
		

> Oh boy, I hit quote and not modify. Might as well quickly ridicule and make assumptions of me using drugs.


Nah, that would be too easy.     Besides, MJ is supposed to make one more mellow than rash, is it not?


----------



## Dean22 (10 Jan 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Imposing draconian and frivilous laws on the majority for their own smug self satisfaction.



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


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

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


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2010)

silverbirdtank said:
			
		

> Oh boy, I hit quote and not modify. Might as well quickly ridicule and make assumptions of me using drugs.



Just because you told me I could; my little gift of munchies for you (NOT the hawt babe):


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2010)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Yes, because anti-marijuana laws and Ontario's new anti-smoking laws are so "draconian and frivilous" (spelt frivolous).
> 
> 
> Sorry, but if that isn't pro-smoke then you need a new vocabulary to articulate what you meant in your last sentence.
> ...



Scrap the last post I just made ... I'm now searching for an even bigger bag of Doritos for ya ...


----------



## Jungle (10 Jan 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What have your  observations been with people that abuse alcohol?
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Tess, as a CSM in a RegF Infantry Battalion, I have observed the abuse problems our young people are going through, which I suspect are similar to the civilian population, if not in numbers or density. I also know civilians with those problems (current or past).

Generally, the kids that I see using illegal drugs also consume alcohol, which is not true the other way around; same is true of most people using cocaine, they also usually consume alcohol, and pot !! Those that I have seen using illegal drugs are the below-average troops, their lives are confusing even to themselves and they are involved in f**k-up after f**k-up; they are the 10% that take up 90% of my time and effort.

As for those who only drink, in the vast majority of cases they are easy to bring back on the right track, and when  a kid gets a DUI, it's usually the last time we have alcohol-related problems with him. But yes, people who drink huge quantities of alcohol have problems, but in drug-users we usually see more then one addiction.


----------



## Scott (10 Jan 2010)

Dean,

Walk away or go back into the warning system. You're being confrontational for the sake of being so.

I figured you'd have learned what was acceptable here by now. Between Milpoints, the warning system and the fact you've been told numerous times...

Scott
Army.ca Staff


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Jan 2010)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Tess, as a CSM in a RegF Infantry Battalion, I have observed the abuse problems our young people are going through, which I suspect are similar to the civilian population, if not in numbers or density. I also know civilians with those problems (current or past).
> 
> Generally, the kids that I see using illegal drugs also consume alcohol, which is not true the other way around; same is true of most people using cocaine, they also usually consume alcohol, and pot !! Those that I have seen using illegal drugs are the below-average troops, their lives are confusing even to themselves and they are involved in f**k-up after f**k-up; they are the 10% that take up 90% of my time and effort.
> 
> As for those who only drink, in the vast majority of cases they are easy to bring back on the right track, and when  a kid gets a DUI, it's usually the last time we have alcohol-related problems with him. But yes, people who drink huge quantities of alcohol have problems, but in drug-users we usually see more then one addiction.



Jungle,

Very good points, however, before I comment I need some questions answered.

Were the 10%ers that take up most of your time, disciplinary problems from the first time entering the military, or did they gradually become one.

dileas

tess


----------



## Jungle (10 Jan 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Jungle,
> 
> Very good points, however, before I comment I need some questions answered.
> 
> ...



I don't know the stats, but my guess is it would be a mix.

As an aside, in the course of my career I have personally known 2 guys who were released for alcohol-related problems; one I lost track of, the other committed suicide shortly after releasing.
Just in the past couple of years or so, I have seen close to a dozen people being shown the door for drug use, all with multiple addictions and constantly in trouble.

These are, of course, local observations, but my opinion is shaped on these.


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Jan 2010)

Jungle said:
			
		

> I don't know the stats, but my guess is it would be a mix.
> 
> As an aside, in the course of my career I have personally known 2 guys who were released for alcohol-related problems; one I lost track of, the other committed suicide shortly after releasing.
> Just in the past couple of years or so, I have seen close to a dozen people being shown the door for drug use, all with multiple addictions and constantly in trouble.
> ...




It's just I am unsure if you are insinuating drug use caused the downfall.  The way I read it looks like this video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W98ZyGVfTDM

As for the soldiers you have shown the door, were the soldiers sent to any form of addictions course, returned and continued to be the problem, or were they released when caught?

dileas

tess


----------



## Jungle (10 Jan 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> It's just I am unsure if you are insinuating drug use caused the downfall.  The way I read it looks like this video;
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W98ZyGVfTDM



I'm not talking about crap from the 60s, I'm talking about members of the CF having these problems NOW... I know alcohol causes problems in a number of persons, however I don't look at it as problems caused by booze or drugs; the problems caused by drugs are usually in addition to alcohol problems



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> As for the soldiers you have shown the door, were the soldiers sent to any form of addictions course, returned and continued to be the problem, or were they released when caught?



At the end of the day, I don't show them the door, we (at unit level) just make recommendations. Everything is done according to CF rules and regulations. There are people in Ottawa who make decisions based (or not) on the unit's recommendations, however I have rarely seen Ptes/Cpls be released after one offence regarding soft drugs. Everyone is offered help, whether they accept the offer is their decision. Most are eventually shown the door, as they usually repeat the offence.


----------



## mariomike (10 Jan 2010)

I'm not an expert. Just someone who held their heads. There's no way I will ever equate liquor with marijuana.


----------



## mellian (10 Jan 2010)

That is probably because for our entire lives, we have been socialized that marijuana is not equal to alcohol and actually worse because it is illegal while alcohol is not. 

In terms of level of addiction, marijuana is not that different from alcohol. Cigarettes is more addictive than either marijuana or alcohol. 

Any anything one puts in one's body, everyone responds differently. Some may in occasionally heavily drink alcohol and never truly become addicted and an alcoholic, while for others just drinking a few is enough to drive to alcoholism. Same goes for marijuana. I have seen people try it for the first time or smoke it on occasion or sharing on occasion as tend to happen in a lot of parties where the stuff is included, yet never got hooked on it and have no problems. For others, seen them try it and later find out they do not go a day without smoking some. Then there is the minority risk that one's body can reject either alcohol or marijuana very aggressively due to allergy or whatever, and possibly mess them up.

Cigarettes and other drugs with high addiction levels, all those who started trying had problems to stop using them. 

Beyond that, also may have to consider the life circumstances of the individuals. Those I have seen able to try or use occasionally, and never get addicted, usually those who have go lives, relatively happy, and so on while those who heavily use either or both and other marijuana and alcohol are depressed, have existing other life problems, relatively not happy, etc. Then there is socialization and peer pressure which may happen if is exposed constantly with marijuana and alcohol, and those that abuse it. So there can be social causes. 

This is not a professional opinion, just my observations and own experiences of life.


----------



## Loachman (10 Jan 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I'm not an expert. Just someone who held their heads. There's no way I will ever equate liquor with marijuana.



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


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2010)

mellian said:
			
		

> In terms of level of addiction, marijuana is not that different from alcohol. Cigarettes is more addictive than either marijuana or alcohol.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Of course your personal experience may deem that cigarettes are more addictive (I'm a smoker - fair warning), but what you fail to point out, while denoting the evils of cigarettes and the "relative" (apparently only because it's 'illegal') unevilness of weed ... is that cigarettes do not (in my experience having dealt with both drug and alcohol problems in my subordinates) affect the mental capacity of someone like weed and alcohol do. 

There's a reason we have a regulation that states zero tolerance towards weed, and no alcohol 12 hours prior to work - because of the mental incapcitation that they (and NOT cigarettes) cause ... and that's a very different and important factor in enabling us to get our jobs done - irregardless of which one of the three may be more addictive than the other.


----------



## mellian (10 Jan 2010)

True, cigarettes have less short term mental affects in comparison to marijuana and alcohol, but they are still more addictive. 

In terms of mental affects, on average, marijuana is not that different from alcohol. Actually, I consider those intoxicated on alcohol more of a problem than those high on marijuana. The latter tends to make people more relaxed, slow, and generally lazier while the former can make someone more hyper, numbing of sensations which create the effect of feeling of being invincible and do more, blurriness, and gradually having trouble maintaining their balance. 

I have am not pro marijuana, just that if in general, marijuana should be treated in the same level as alcohol. Either legalized and regulated, or ban alcohol as well both in the CF and society in general. 

Marijuana is so prevalent now, that it makes less sense trying to continue making it illegal (in same way does not make sense to ban alcohol ala prohibition years have shown) and not regulating. Not just in cities, but rural areas as well. I have been exposed to the stuff wherever I go, and know nearly as many people that smoke it as those who drink alcohol, from when I first encountered it in junior high to now, friends and family, from all over the place. I can walk down the street and smell wif of it near schools, government, and even the police station.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2010)

mellian said:
			
		

> True, cigarettes have less short term mental affects in comparison to marijuana and alcohol, but they are still more addictive.



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



> In terms of mental affects, on average, marijuana is not that different from alcohol. Actually, I consider those intoxicated on alcohol more of a problem than those high on marijuana. The latter tends to make people more relaxed, slow, and generally lazier while the former can make someone more hyper, numbing of sensations which create the effect of feeling of being invincible and do more, blurriness, and gradually having trouble maintaining their balance.



Geez, that's exactly what I need when the bullets start flying unannounced --- someone mellower, slow, relaxed and lazy. Irregardless, there's a reason alcohol is prohibited 12 hours prior to work and zero tolerance in most theatre AORs these days.



> I have am not pro marijuana, just that if in general, marijuana should be treated in the same level as alcohol. Either legalized and regulated, or ban alcohol as well both in the CF and society in general.
> 
> Marijuana is so prevalent now, that it makes less sense trying to continue making it illegal (in same way does not make sense to ban alcohol ala prohibition years have shown) and not regulating. Not just in cities, but rural areas as well. I have been exposed to the stuff wherever I go, and know nearly as many people that smoke it as those who drink alcohol, from when I first encountered it in junior high to now, friends and family, from all over the place. I can walk down the street and smell wif of it near schools, government, and even the police station.



Most people speed too, should we make that legal?

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.

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


----------



## Bass ackwards (10 Jan 2010)

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.


----------



## silverbirdtank (10 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Most people speed too, should we make that legal?



What a beautiful piece of rhetoric. 

Each law or regulation is set in place for a specific reason. Usually to prevent the public from harm. In the case of speeding the best way to prevent the public from harm is decided to be placing a limit on speed and then to fine people accordingly when they breach the limit.

In the case of cannabis the law was made without any comprhensive research and the fines, sentances of the day do not reflect the potential harm to our society.

As i've already posted the Canadian Senate has already extensively researched the topic and came to the scientific solution that marijuana should be legalized, taxed and regulated to reduce the amount of harm caused by the substance to the Canadian people.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2010)

AFAIK, it's legal in Holland to smoke pot.  Are they stupidier/less competent people than us?


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2010)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> AFAIK, it's legal in Holland to smoke pot.  Are they stupidier/less competent people than us?



Are they smoking it while at work? Do they show up to work stoned? Shall we have your co-pilot ensure he smokes a bit of weed up there next time? You volunteering as the guinea pig?

Were talking about work. Nice spin on it though.  :


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2010)

silverbirdtank said:
			
		

> What a beautiful piece of rhetoric.
> 
> Each law or regulation is set in place for a specific reason. Usually to prevent the public from harm. In the case of speeding the best way to prevent the public from harm is decided to be placing a limit on speed and then to fine people accordingly when they breach the limit.
> 
> ...



Rhetoric only because it highlights your consistent ability to scream "lack of research" ... I'm quite sure that preventing a guy from driving stoned is also in the public interest.  Or from working stoned.

You should delve further in those senate studies ...


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Are they smoking it while at work? Do they show up to work stoned? Shall we have your co-pilot ensure he smokes a bit of weed up there next time? You volunteering as the guinea pig?
> 
> Were talking about work. Nice spin on it though.  :



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.


----------



## silverbirdtank (10 Jan 2010)

You post your opinion, I post fact.

I have never seen a study out of Holland or anywhere that associated legalization/decriminalization with increased cases of driving under the influence or even increased use at all.

In fact,

2.Comparing Important Drug and Violence Indicators 

Social Indicator Comparison Year                                                          USA                 Netherlands 
Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)  2001                       36.9% 1           17.0% 2  
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)  2001                  5.4% 1              3.0% 2  
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+)  2001                             1.4% 1              0.4% 2  
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population  2002                                 701  3                100 4  
Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros)  1998           €379 5               €223 5  
Homicide rate per 100,000 population  Average 1999-2001                 5.56 6                1.51 6  

  
Source: 1: US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I. Summary of National Findings (Washington, DC: HHS, August 2002), p. 109, Table H.1.
2:  Trimbos Institute, "Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point, The Netherlands Drug Situation 2002" (Lisboa, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Nov. 2002), p. 28, Table 2.1.
3:  Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (fifth edition) (London, England: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office), Dec. 2003, p. 3, Table 2.
4:  Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (fifth edition) (London, England: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office), Dec. 2003, p. 5, Table 4.
5:  van Dijk, Frans & Jaap de Waard, "Legal infrastructure of the Netherlands in international perspective: Crime control" (Netherlands: Ministry of Justice, June 2000), p. 9, Table S.13.
6:  Barclay, Gordon, Cynthia Tavares, Sally Kenny, Arsalaan Siddique & Emma Wilby, "International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2001," Issue 12/03 (London, England: Home Office Research, Development & Statistics Directorate, October 2003), p. 10, Table 1.1.

You tell me how keeping marijuana illegal prevents people from driving and working high?

I'm just telling you, consistantly that it is proven more so every day that it is safer legal than illegal for all Canadian citizens and the citizens of California. 

You can keep telling me your personal feelings, thoughts and rhetoric but i'm not responding to any more whims because thruthfully all your reservations on the subject can be compromised by simple google searches or about 15-20 minutes research into the topic at hand.

I actually used to think marijuana was a pretty hurtfull thing that was wrecking the lives of a lot of people I knew and was definately against a change in laws but I decided one day when discussing it with another person to play advocate for the other side and found out I was wrong about a lot of things.


----------



## observor 69 (10 Jan 2010)

Pot, like alcohol, both drugs, obviously should be used in a responsible manner. 
Otherwise I consider it less harmful than alcohol.
Ya it's OK to get bombed, smashed, tie one on, hammered, loaded, pissed, plastered, s**t-faced, or wasted just don't get high.
Alcohol is a drug society has become comfortable and familiar with.
It would be interesting if pot had come first and we could have a debate over the harm of legalizing alcohol.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2010)

silverbirdtank said:
			
		

> You post your opinion, I post fact



Really? Please post a ref to your "fact that the majority of Canadians want this legalized".


----------



## silverbirdtank (10 Jan 2010)

look at what you are going after, just grasping now aren't we?

please, we have been over this in this thread. I didn't say majority Canadians, I was talking about Californians.

Even if I had, it would be a mistake and it further proves my earlier point that people hardly ever want to talk using facts. Just jump on one sentance they don't agree with and then pat themselves on the back because now they can walk away disregarding all the information presented them.

Have a swell night my friend, you obviously taken enough blasphemy for one sitting.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2010)

Angus Reid did some study and polled the population several times:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/30688/canadian_majority_would_legalize_marijuana/


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2010)

silverbirdtank said:
			
		

> look at what you are going after, just grasping now aren't we?
> 
> please, we have been over this in this thread. I didn't say majority Canadians, I was talking about Californians.
> 
> ...



Good dawd ... I'm sure I watched Jman explain to you how this has now turned into something about "Canada" based on YOUR posting of the senate reports no?

Apparently, only your own facts will do.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jan 2010)

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?


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2010)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Angus Reid did some study and polled the population several times:
> 
> http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/30688/canadian_majority_would_legalize_marijuana/



Got a better ref than that?  With a given error margine rating of:



> Source: Angus Reid Strategies
> Methodology: Online interviews with 1,004 Canadian adults, conducted on May 8 and May 9, 2008. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.



Given that their "in favour of majority" was only 53% ... that could very well drop down to an "actual" 49.9% by their own admission. Not exactly a study which I would deem to actually provide a factual basis for their being "a mjority" in favour of legalization.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jan 2010)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Jan 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> 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 (10 Jan 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> 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 (10 Jan 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> 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 (10 Jan 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> 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....
> 
> ...



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 (10 Jan 2010)

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 (10 Jan 2010)

Jungle said:
			
		

> 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 (10 Jan 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> 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 (10 Jan 2010)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Jan 2010)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

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



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 (11 Jan 2010)

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 (11 Jan 2010)

Stukov said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Jan 2010)

mellian said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Jan 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Jan 2010)

mellian said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Jan 2010)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 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.  



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Jan 2010)

mellian said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jan 2010)

mellian said:
			
		

> 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
> ...



So the people that ensure you receive fair and equal treatment as a citizen, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are to be denied those same rights as you? Your post reaks of anti authority bias.



			
				mellian said:
			
		

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



Absolutely. Your anti establishment, social engineering smugness comes through loud and clear. Another socialist do gooder that's going to try tell me what is good for me and if I don't agree, will squash my rights and make me a criminal through uselss laws designed to appease special interest groups. Yup, I know exactly your type......and what page you're on.

I regret getting sucked back into discussion with you. Back on my ignore list.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jan 2010)

mellian said:
			
		

> ...
> _Blah Blah Blah _ ...
> 
> To summarize my opinions:
> ...



I was referring to civilian populace - ergo why my statement said "nor is it the majority belief in my family etc *who are not related to the military* (just to make it real clear and obvious for you).

I've walked by the Parliament buildings ... I've never had opportunity to inhale the scents you have. 

Again, irregardless of your links (there's links that show other wise here in this thread) ... where is your link to the fact that the majority of Canadians want this legalized ... I'm still waiting.  :

You get called in for a drug test and you have THC in your system, you'll have lots of explaining to do. There's a whole heck of a lot of pers here on this site who've been there and done that testing ... and we aren't turning up even a little (let alone in droves) with THC in our systems --- again --- perhaps it's the company you keep.

PLEASE: Link me to the forum guidelines (ie the site rules) where it states that I can't respond to a point YOU made in one of your posts? I eagerly await it --- I must have missed it during my time as a site mod.

You want to discuss anything that differs with your point of view view PM?? THEN send your PoV via PM vice posting on threads.

There, it's settled. You post, we can comment IAW the site guidelines. Apparently you really _*do*_ think that you're special in that no one is allowed to respond to you. Wrong. You don't post (a wonderful idea actually) and we can't respond. that's how it works for everyone else, yet apparently you seem to believe that you are special in that people can't make comments about what you post.

You are free to snap into reality anyday now; until then ... and until you show me the "rule" I broke by commenting on your comment ...

Buh-bye[/ignore]


----------



## mellian (11 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I was referring to civilian populace - ergo why my statement said "nor is it the majority belief in my family etc *who are not related to the military* (just to make it real clear and obvious for you).
> 
> 
> I've walked by the Parliament buildings ... I've never had opportunity to inhale the scents you have.



My home city is Ottawa and spent a lot of time in the downtown area which includes the Parliament. Also attended various events, watched politicians do their thing at the house of commons, had meetings with some MPs or munches at their offices, etc. Then there is the fact Parliament Hill is fun the walk around and hang out during the summer, saying to the Parliament cats, check out the view around back and such. So yes, had many opportunities to get acquainted with our Parliament, and in turn the occasional scents of pot which I have unfortunately familiarized just before high school. 



> Again, irregardless of your links (there's links that show other wise here in this thread) ... where is your link to the fact that the majority of Canadians want this legalized ... I'm still waiting.  :



I never made that claim. I just said pot is prevalent in our country from my experience, and not just with the company I keep.  



> You get called in for a drug test and you have THC in your system, you'll have lots of explaining to do. There's a whole heck of a lot of pers here on this site who've been there and done that testing ... and we aren't turning up even a little (let alone in droves) with THC in our systems --- again --- perhaps it's the company you keep.



Apparently medical has not found any in my blood either (unless they did not check with the blood sample they took). 



> PLEASE: Link me to the forum guidelines (ie the site rules) where it states that I can't respond to a point YOU made in one of your posts? I eagerly await it --- I must have missed it during my time as a site mod.



Conditions as in the ones given to me by Directing Staff.  Something to do with not seeking attention and being responsible for thread closures. 



> You want to discuss anything that differs with your point of view view PM?? THEN send your PoV via PM vice posting on threads.



You started discussing me in the personal, not the topic of the discussion and thread. I start responding to comments of the personal here, then next thing I know there is a dogpile, thread gets close, public and PM warnings by the DS, and potentially banned. 



> that's how it works for everyone else, yet apparently you seem to believe that you are special in that people can't make comments about what you post.



They can comment, as you have, to what I say in relation to the topic at hand, but start discussing me and making outright assumptions in the personal, referencing other things not related to the topic in this thread, leads to problems. I am trying to be responsible and not to respond to them. Next time, I will just completely ignore and just focus on the parts that is actually related to the discussion.



> You are free to snap into reality anyday now; until then ... and until you show me the "rule" I broke by commenting on your comment ...



Whole thing about being civil, not starting dogpiles, and such. 


*post edited to fix quoting function
the 48th regulator


----------



## combat_medic (11 Jan 2010)

Thread locked. Everyone to your corners and cool down. 

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------

