Drug use/drug testing in the CF (merged)

[chrisf]

Except that alcohol does not produce second hand smoke that can cause cancer in non-users or impare designated drivers.

While I agree with both your points...

Cigarettes produce second hand smoke, yet they're quite legal.

On the subject of impairing designated drivers, you're not allowed to drink in a vehicle, I see no reason why you should be permitted to smoke marijuana in a vehicle either.

No, you just force that criminal element to deal in "harder" drugs.

The criminal element already deals in the harder drugs. I'm afraid I miss your point here. Decriminalising small quantities of marijuana has already freed up some of the strain on the courts... in addition to hauling a good deal of the business out from under the feet of organized crime, you also clear up the strain on the police forces and the courts from dealing with these criminals.

 

[Jungle]

Here's a reference: http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html

Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use on Learning and Social Behavior

Depression(19), anxiety(20), and personality disturbances(21) have been associated with marijuana use. Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person's existing problems worse. Because marijuana compromises the ability to learn and remember information, the more a person uses marijuana the more he or she is likely to fall behind in accumulating intellectual, job, or social skills. Moreover, research has shown that marijuana's adverse impact on memory and learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off

Now I agree alcohol is causing a lot of problems. But for the vast majority of consumers, the effects are short-lasting, usually hours, and they are back to normal. Whereas with pot, the effects are longer lasting, and more difficult to detect. I also read another study, in which they mentionned that long-term effects of pot use were not well-known, due to the illegal nature of the drug. You can also tell the pot-smoking opposers of genetically modified organisms that their drug of choice is one of the most genetically-modified plants around: the THC level has been "tweaked" to multiply it by up to 10 times compared to the plant in the wild.
Finally, on a personal note: I strongly dislike the lifestyle that often comes with smoking pot: laziness, rebellious attitude, little respect of self-image, etc... So I am against legalization or decriminalization, and in favour of tougher sentences for dealers and growers.

 

[McG]

On the subject of impairing designated drivers, you're not allowed to drink in a vehicle, I see no reason why you should be permitted to smoke marijuana in a vehicle either.

This would not protect the driver before hand while at a bar, party, or the Tim Hortons smoke room.

The criminal element already deals in the harder drugs. I'm afraid I miss your point here. Decriminalising small quantities of marijuana has already freed up some of the strain on the courts... in addition to hauling a good deal of the business out from under the feet of organized crime, you also clear up the strain on the police forces and the courts from dealing with these criminals.

Yes, criminals do deal in harder drugs now.  However, if marijuana were taken out of their hands and given to "legitimate" industry, then the criminals would suddenly find themselves with excess capacity to create and move drugs illegally.  This excess capacity could be used to increase the flow of harder drugs.

Cigarettes produce second hand smoke, yet they're quite legal.

I would not hold this out as a high point of our society.

 

[CivU]

"Now I agree alcohol is causing a lot of problems. But for the vast majority of consumers, the effects are short-lasting, usually hours, and they are back to normal. "

Tell that to someone with liver damage or the family of a victim of drunk driving.  Alcohol's long term effects are very damaging.

"This excess capacity could be used to increase the flow of harder drugs"

The increased flow of hard drugs would only come as a result of an increased demand.  Unless people suddenly decide that Friday after work their gonna hit a rail and that Saturday's are now reserved for smack, I do not see the potential for an excess of hard drugs over what is already present.

"This would not protect the driver before hand while at a bar, party, or the Tim Hortons smoke room"

It would be treated like alcohol.  One cannot consume a specified amount and operate a vehcile.


The money saved on busting fourteen year old kids with a gram of marijuana and nothing to do on Tuesday afternoon could be better directed at education and treatment measures, such as safe injection sites and methodone access, for users of hard drugs.

 

[McG]

It would be treated like alcohol. One cannot consume a specified amount and operate a vehcile.

How very excellent.  Now, remembering that we are talking about second hand smoke causing the imparement of a potentially unaware driver.  This would mean that pot could not be used in any public venue and it would be illegal to drive if you had been around pot smokers in a private setting.

The increased flow of hard drugs would only come as a result of an increased demand. Unless people suddenly decide that Friday after work their gonna hit a rail and that Saturday's are now reserved for smack, I do not see the potential for an excess of hard drugs over what is already present.

Increased capacity would result in lower costs and lower costs would result in a higher demand.

 

[Sailing Instructor]

I'd like to pull out the old conservative/traditionalist argument: let's just keep these marihuana laws as they've been since it seems to be working out pretty well for the Canadian people.

But then, when one realises the illegality of marihuana arose from business interest (rather than interest in the good of the people) it becomes very hard to support a tradition that arose from a mistake.

Man really must really be quite mad to inhale smoke on purpose yet want fresh air in a fire, & drink alcohol yet go to the hospital after accidentally ingesting something of a higher proof.  That said, there may be sour grapes as I am sitting at the computer on a friday night....

 

[48Highlander]

Increased capacity would result in lower costs and lower costs would result in a higher demand.

Sorry, but as I've stated before, statistics from the netherlands show that decrimializing "soft" drugs tends to LOWER the demand for "hard" drugs.  Kinda like how legalizing the concealed carrying of firearms tends to decrease gun-crimes.  It's counter-intuitive, but that's how it works.  Don't beleive me, google it.  Or if you're really lazy just ask and I'll track down some links.

 

[McG]

You've suddenly become a lot more confident that the results from another country will be mirrored here.  That is a long shot when there are no other statistics to show that trend is or is not likely to be repeated in other locations.

Now, obviously I can't guarantee that we'd have the same result if we legalized it in Canada

However, it is an accepted principle of economics that if supply is increased prices will drop to bring the demand up to meet the level of supply. 

Kinda like how legalizing the concealed carrying of firearms tends to decrease gun-crimes. It's counter-intuitive, but that's how it works.

The firearms example is an orange to the apples we are talking about on this thread.  However, it is a nice example to illustrate how other factors can make statistics taken from one place completely inaccurate for another place.  It has been "prooven" in the US that legalizing the concealed carrying of firearms tends to decrease gun-crimes.  This is because criminals avoid using firearms because anybody around them could be armed and ready to shoot back.  However, this has been by comparing results in US states.  With no controlled boarders between states, weapons flow freely and easily between them and this means that a ban in one state does not reduce the availability of firearms to the lower class criminal.  However, by controlling the flow of fire arms across its boarders, a country can control the availability of firearms to criminals (the guy going to knock of 7eleven would never have the money to get an illegal firearm) and thus decrease gun crimes by taking weapons off the street.  This has been seen is various countries despite the contrary results seen between US states.

The moral: don't expect results to mimic themselves in different countries unless you can show similarity in the social, economic, and political variables that allowed for those results in the first country.

 

[atticus]

Sorry, but as I've stated before, statistics from the netherlands show that decrimializing "soft" drugs tends to LOWER the demand for "hard" drugs.  Kinda like how legalizing the concealed carrying of firearms tends to decrease gun-crimes.  It's counter-intuitive, but that's how it works.  Don't beleive me, google it.  Or if you're really lazy just ask and I'll track down some links.

Hey, I didn't believe that so I did google it and I found your pretty right! The only thing is that it wasn't just the decriminalizing of soft drugs (the only "soft drug" is mj), it was also the social programs they brought into schools and the fact that it lowed the allure of mj. It was also about showing the health affects and saying, "Hey, its your body, you mess it up your stuck with it". I also highly doubt that the same figures would be mirrored in Canada, being the big 'ol 300 million to our south.

http://www.amsterdam.nl/asp/get.asp?ItmIdt=00001152&SitIdt=00000005&VarIdt=00000002

With the gun control allegory, recently they have found in Texas that shooting are quite high, with many people being innocently shot (eg. a few weeks ago their was a shoot out in a church) with people thinking they were protecting themselves.

I still wouldn't want to work with somebody who I knew smoked pot, its something I really don't like. People argue that alcohol and mj are very similar in that drinking gets you impared, and smoking a joint gets you impared, the thing with that is it is possible to go out and have a few drinks and not be drunk and be completely under the legal limit; while its not possible to go out and smoke a few joints and be completely sober. Maybe the gov't should work on making drugs loose their allure, but maybe thats where they are trying to go with the decriminalization of a few grams.

 

[48Highlander]

Yes I know, we might not get the same results here.  But no matter what we try, it can't have any worse results than current laws and programs.  Use smoking (tobbaco) as an example.  The percentage of people in Canada who smoke has only gone down due to extensive government programs to educate the public, as well as high taxes on smokes.  Now if tomorrow we made it illegal, smoking would suddenly seem even more appealing to the rebelious teenage crowd, it would go down in price making it more available, and it would become easier for children and teens to purchase.  Do you seriously beleive outlawing the smoking of cigarettes would decrease the ammount of people who use them?  Culdn't we maybe draw an analogy between that and current drug laws?

 

[McG]

But no matter what we try, it can't have any worse results than current laws and programs.

If harder drug use becomes more common, I'd say that is worse.

Now if tomorrow we made it illegal, smoking would suddenly seem even more appealing to the rebelious teenage crowd, it would go down in price making it more available, and it would become easier for children and teens to purchase.

How does something become more available when all the legal means of distribution are shut off?   The supply will drop but the demand will remain the same, and this means prices can go up.   The criminal element that would eventually step in with illegal distribution already knows what smokers are willing to pay for cigarettes.   Why do you think they would sell at a lower price?

Do you seriously beleive outlawing the smoking of cigarettes would decrease the ammount of people who use them?

If it was done in both Canada and the US, then I do believe it would cut the number of smokers.   If one country were to go it alone, then there would be legally produced supply readily available just across a boarder.

The percentage of people in Canada who smoke has only gone down due to extensive government programs to educate the public, as well as high taxes on smokes.

So, why do we need to legalize marijuana before we can educate the public?   I've seen some very excellent in your face advertisement campaigns, that have come out of Australia, and encourage responsible driving and driving sober.   Graphic & brutally honest.   I've also seem some excellent advertisements against smoking that take the "glamour" out of the habit, reflect the financial costs, and graphically display the health risks.   I've never seen anti-drug advertising as powerful as the stuff we produce for either of these other issues.   Especially when we could show many of the same cancer risks as smoking, the same risks to driving as alcohol, and the monetary cost to users.   One other thing that could be forced down the public's throat is that casual drug users finance a criminal industry that is responsible for murder.   I'm not only talking about the four RCMP officers just the other day.   I'm even thinking back to gang turf wars in Montreal that saw children killed by car bombs.   The message we need to sell is simple:

Casual Drug users finance the murders of a criminal industry.​

 

[CivU]

"Increased capacity would result in lower costs and lower costs would result in a higher demand."

This is akin to Stephen Harper's polygamy/slippery slope.  Laughable at best.  If marijuana were leagalized tommorow, millions of Canadians would not decide to go out and use crack, cocaine, heroin, meth just because there is now more oppurtunity for dealers to move it.  People make a concious decision to not use that to begin with, why would that change?

Your entire argument is based around the notion that marijuana is pure evil...I think you need to turn reefer madness of a loop and realize that there are far more concering social epidemics.

 

[48Highlander]

MCG, that picture is just horrible.  Were four of our boys got killed in afghanistan, did you put up a picture of four CF graves with the words "These deaths financed by the US tax payer"?

 

[McG]

The difference being our soldiers were killed by mistake.   Those four RCMP officers, and many others, have been murdered by the conscious decisions of agents of the drug industry, and it is the casual users that support that industry.

Yes it is horrible.  Is that where you want your money going?

 

[48Highlander]

The difference being our soldiers were killed by mistake.   Those four RCMP officers, and many others, have been murdered by the conscious decisions of agents of the drug industry, and it is the casual users that support that industry.

Yes it is horrible.   Is that where you want your money going?

No, our soldiers were deliberately murdered by the CIA because they had evidence of a UFO crash.

See, I can make assenine comments too.

If you don't like my comparison, how about posting a picture of that Somali kid with the caption "This murder brught to you courtesy of the Canadian Forces"?

 

[George Wallace]

Time for someone to go out for a WOBBLY POP!

 

[big bad john]

I remember the old billboards on the way from the airport in Kuala Lumpur, "Drugs Mean Death".  They have executed several western tourist who have bought heroin over the years.  I am a believer in a 0% tolerance.  Heavy jail sentences and more!

On this I am slightly to the right politically of Genghis Khan.

 

[KevinB]

MCG - 100%


 48th Truth hurts - suck it up.

Fact is despite what the media and other long hair dope smoking tree hugging type want your to think - Org crime runs the business - just like peeler bars etc.

 

[ArmyRick]

I like the death sentence idea (malaysia) for drug dealers and growers...

We can not and must not tolerate drug use or even think of legalize it.

I have know some one who is barely 20 years old and his brain is fried, I mean freaking done by simply using soft drugs (mostly marijuana).

Yeah legalize it? We are asking for a heap of trouble.

 

[48Highlander]

Well obviosly the mob is against me here, so I'm about ready to throw in the towel, but let's give it another shot first.

I remember the old billboards on the way from the airport in Kuala Lumpur, "Drugs Mean Death".  They have executed several western tourist who have bought heroin over the years.  I am a believer in a 0% tolerance.  Heavy jail sentences and more!

A guide to buying drugs in Kuala Lampur:
http://www.sixthseal.com/000673.html

Drug problem at a dangerous level:
http://www.mapinc.org/safe/v05/n308/a03.html

Their zero tolerance policy seems to be working just as well as our 50% tolerance policy

 48th Truth hurts - suck it up.

Fact is despite what the media and other long hair dope smoking tree hugging type want your to think - Org crime runs the business - just like peeler bars etc.

If you find the truth painful, you have my pitty.  In any event, you saying that something is true doesn't make it so.  MCG's little diagram is misleading, inaccurate, and done in poor taste.  It does absolutely nothing to further the discussion or back up his/your opinion on drug laws.  I could just as easily argue that the government caused these deaths by making drugs illegal.  I'm not GOING to make that argument because I know it's not a valid one.  And MCG's argument falls in the same category.  The only person responsible for the death of those mounties was the asshole who pulled the trigger.  You start playing the blame game and pretty soon you'll be able to convince yourself that it was the fault of marijauan users, gunmakers, the government, the police, beer, television, and the music industry.  Everyone except the gunman.

I like the death sentence idea (malaysia) for drug dealers and growers...

We can not and must not tolerate drug use or even think of legalize it.

I have know some one who is barely 20 years old and his brain is fried, I mean freaking done by simply using soft drugs (mostly marijuana).

Yeah legalize it? We are asking for a heap of trouble.

I know someone who died in a car crash at 18.  Let's make cars illegal.
I know of a 5 year old kid who drowned in a swimming pool.  Let's make them illegal.
I know a guy in his early 20's who's an alcoholic with seriuos liver problems.  Let' make alcohol illegal.
I have a friend who, at the age of 18, developed an ulcer from drinking too much cocke (the legal, liquid kind).  Let's make coke, sprite, pepsi, etc. illegal.

I think you get my drift.  I don't care who you know or what their problem is, that individual is NOT a reason to make something illegl.  Laws should be based on though and logic, not half-trouths, misconceptions, and fears.