Trudeau says he will legalize cannabis if elected this fall.

[outllaw]

any polictical party will be controlled by pharmaceutical companies.. until there in place to grow and control the market place nothing will happen.. if society wants/needs pot for medicinal use that's the reality folks. do you honestly think it would be a free market?. as for my take on pot ,its a substance as cigarettes booze. if it does happen I will invest in munchies stocks

[solopaddler]

So....Trudeau is going to legalize canibals. Sounds reasonable.

[dave524]

So....Trudeau is going to legalize canibals. Sounds reasonable.

 

He has to, a Liberal cabinet meeting can't function with out it.

[OhioFisherman]

I like this thread, it brings up so many different debates. One thing it made me think about is there has been a lot of talk about drugs testing welfare recipients, just wondering how many in favour of legalizing pot are in favour of drugs testing welfare claimants, I am not in favour of testing people on welfare, i'm not sure where I stand on the legalize pot issue, but would have to say I instinctively lean towards legalization.

 

Just from what I have read about testing people on welfare here for drugs? That plan is costing more than the savings from it.

[netminder]

I'd vote for Trudeau over Harper for many reasons other than this, but that's beside the point.

 

I think it's fascinating how it seems pretty much everyone is in favour of this, even some of the hard-line conservative old-timers posting here. I agree that pot is a lot less harmful than most other drugs, especially the legal recreational drugs, and especially the prescription drugs big pharma would like us to be addicted to. That being said, saying it's "of the earth", or completely safe is completely assinine.

 

1. It's currently illegal and for sale on the black market. Do you honestly believe that the growers are paying close attention to safe levels of pesticides or synthetric fertilizers they're using?

 

2. Even breathing in super heated air is harmful to your mouth, throat and lungs. That's beside the point that it contains way more tar than even tobacco smoke.

 

I would love for it to be legalized, but that's mainly because I hate the idea of buying it from the black market, and the people who sell it now often come accross as the scum of the earth. Keeping it away from kids? yeah, let's trust the drug dealers now to ensure that doesn't happen... Hell, there are soon to be at least 4 states that will have it legalized, it's time for socialist Canada to follow suit.

[fish_fishburn]

After reading all this I think it should be legalized and taxed for both medicinal use as well as recreation use. Why one and not the other. Also let each adult over 18 in any household grow a max of 6 plants each or a max of 12 per household for personal use. This will keep the price reasonable for all. If the govt doesn't allow us to grow our own plants if we choose to they will have the monopoly and can charge whatever they want and will screw up the whole system by charging way to much. If the price is reasonable most people would be happy to buy it and pay taxes on it from some type of dispensary. No different then buying veggies at the grocery store. You can make your own wine and beer at home and grow your own herbs and vegetables so weed should be no different. Its really just a harmless plant

[DRIFTER_016]

Last month pot became legal in Alaska.

Now there is no problem having it but they have laws on where you can partake and also growing your own.

For instance, there is a limit of 6 plants per household and only 3 can be flowering @ once.

Smoking weed in public is against the law and ticketable just like drinking out of residence.

Also because the feds still have pot as being illegal big trouble can be had consuming on federal land.

[Rod Caster]

If they are gonna legalize it, make it a free-market item, just like beer and most every other item you can name. Free-market means anyone can build it, make it, manufacture it, grow it and the market decides it's fate. I can make all the crappy beer I want at home, but I prefer good quality beer, not homemade swill, so I purchase it instead. The market hath spoken.

[Dutch01]

" 2. Even breathing in super heated air is harmful to your mouth, throat and lungs. That's beside the point that it contains way more tar than even tobacco smoke."

 

Netminder I suggest you read about the study done by Dr. Donald Tashkin (professor of medicine at UCLA). His study, the largest and longest running of its kind, concluded that marijuana use had no measurable correlation with lung cancer. In fact, it determined that occasional marijuana smokers had better lung function than non smokers.

 

A lot of what people believe about marijuana now days are are holdovers from the propaganda war on weed. There is a lot of quality info out there now from reputable sources, I suggest you might want to re-examine the genesis of your opinions.

 

(Further reading: http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage)

[manitoubass2]

I mentioned it is of the earth, and it is left fairly unadultereated. Im not saying it doesnt have its risks but its minimal at worst. Its far less processed then say cocaine or heroin.

 

And if something that exist in nature isnt safe to consume, thats not the governments call IMO.

 

Im guessing the body has cannabinoid receptors for a reason, same with nicotine. Heck there is even opiate receptors.

Edited March 19, 2015 by manitoubass2

[netminder]

Fair enough. I've heard plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument. I guess what you could say is there doesn't seem to be any health benefits for healthy people to smoke it. Just like everyone else here, I "used to" smoke it, and probably more than my fair share. From my experiences, it does effect my breathing and performance in athletics, especially from daily smoking. One thing you need to realize when reading some of those articles and studies, "regular" or "frequent" smoking is classified as more than once a month.

 

The plant isn't heavily processed, but the chemicals that it's treated with are, and they're still there when it's smoked. There are also plenty of things that are "of the earth" that are incredibly toxic.

[dave524]

 

The plant isn't heavily processed, but the chemicals that it's treated with are, and they're still there when it's smoked. There are also plenty of things that are "of the earth" that are incredibly toxic.

 

Flashback to the days around 1970 when you steered clear of Mexican weed cause the US and Mexico was spraying it with paraquat , Reefer Madness mentality prevailed in the government then.

[manitoubass2]

Fair enough. I've heard plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument. I guess what you could say is there doesn't seem to be any health benefits for healthy people to smoke it. Just like everyone else here, I "used to" smoke it, and probably more than my fair share. From my experiences, it does effect my breathing and performance in athletics, especially from daily smoking. One thing you need to realize when reading some of those articles and studies, "regular" or "frequent" smoking is classified as more than once a month.

 

The plant isn't heavily processed, but the chemicals that it's treated with are, and they're still there when it's smoked. There are also plenty of things that are "of the earth" that are incredibly toxic.

Chemicals come in more in large scale harvesting, not homegrowing.

 

Yes many things exist in nature that are incredibly toxic, thats not debatable. BUT, does the government regulate those?

 

They have no business IMO telling anyone which plants they cannot harvest, smoke etc.

 

Of course smoking weed hurts your lungs to a degree, your inhaling smoke. Its a moot point. You could smoke a dandelion and it will effect your lungs. But if you enjoy it or get some benefit from it do you think I should tell you you cant do it?

 

Lots of studies portray marijuana as bad because its an elicit substance. Since when does the government want to admit they are wrong and backtrack to make it legal?

 

These are the same folks that pushed codeine on toddlers for anything and everything in the mid 1900's.

 

They have an agenda, so all studies done by them or supported by them are flawed in their very nature.

 

You need independant, double randomized placebo studies on large groups, varying in age, sex, nationality etc to draw any informed conclusion.

[jimmer]

We live in an addictive society: Timmies, beer, cigarettes, fishing, wine; what's one more thing.

I don't know how many times I have been sitting around with a bunch of guys (not necessarily guys I know) when someone that is hammered on alcohol starts into those that smoke pot, calling them pot heads druggies etc. I just laugh to myself because I can't say I have seen drunken behaviour from someone who was stoned on weed.

Another issue with legalizing is what to do with vehicle operators. It is my understanding that THC remains in your body for approximately 1 month. "Call into work, sorry boss I smoked a joint last night, so I will have to take a month off before I can drive to work again" What kind of breathalizer would they use?

I think most that smoke have no problem in satisfying their needs.

[manitoubass2]

We live in an addictive society: Timmies, beer, cigarettes, fishing, wine; what's one more thing.

I don't know how many times I have been sitting around with a bunch of guys (not necessarily guys I know) when someone that is hammered on alcohol starts into those that smoke pot, calling them pot heads druggies etc. I just laugh to myself because I can't say I have seen drunken behaviour from someone who was stoned on weed.

Another issue with legalizing is what to do with vehicle operators. It is my understanding that THC remains in your body for approximately 1 month. "Call into work, sorry boss I smoked a joint last night, so I will have to take a month off before I can drive to work again" What kind of breathalizer would they use?

I think most that smoke have no problem in satisfying their needs.

We dont live in an addictive society.

 

Its hard wired into our brains and bodies. Study neuro anatomy etc.

 

Every human on earth is an "addict" to something or many things.

 

Its called the "pleasure/reward system".

 

Its in every human and without it you would enjoy nothing, actually you wouldnt even function.

[manitoubass2]

By definition, you are addicted to food and water. Is that a bad thing? Yes and no, it keeps you alive. But it also causes disease etc that can or will kill you.

 

Would you sell all your tackle, rods, boat tomorrow? No? Your addicted to fishing.

 

The fact of the matter is addictions keep us alive and functioning, and addictions also kill us.

 

Some are productive, proactive etc, others are self destructive, kill us or harm or kill others.

 

Its a never ending cycle.

 

Try to quit sleeping and tell me how that works out for you

 

(Not directed at anyone in particular)

[Terry]

I don't think i would call bodily biological functions an addictions

[manitoubass2]

I don't think i would call bodily biological functions an addictions

They are exactly that terry.

 

They all have to do with the effects of neurotransmittors and how they effect the functions of your mind and body.

 

What Im talking about is really just a different prospective on how the mind and body function.

 

Your biology is the addiction to live.

 

They are very closely intertwined.

 

Part of my point is addiction is kinda a dirty word.

 

Life itself can be abused or enjoyed, or both(always the case) but your Biology, genetic makeup, physiology etc. all determine how that works out for you

Edited March 19, 2015 by manitoubass2

[Terry]

maybe what you eat but not the act of eating or breath or crapping or peeing

 

it's a biological machine that needs fuel

[manitoubass2]

maybe what you eat but not the act of eating or breath or crapping or peeing

 

it's a biological machine that needs fuel

Yes and no. Are you going to pee? Of course. But the act of doing so alters chemicals in your body that alter your mind.

 

Of course you have to eat, sleep, pee, deficate. But all of the above alter your mind to a varying degree.

 

But thats not your biology telling you you have to eat, thats your mind.

 

You can starve yourself to death but it wont be pleasant. Part of that is because of the neurotransmittors that dictate your pleasure reward system.

 

Thats where homeostasis comes in. Your mind fights all these changes, then sends those signals to the hormones throughout the body

 

You body doesnt like change. It wiĺl fight it at all cost, or adapt with a new way to stimulate what the body/mind needs.

[limeyangler]

Yes and no. Are you going to pee? Of course. But the act of doing so alters chemicals in your body that alter your mind.

 

Of course you have to eat, sleep, pee, deficate. But all of the above alter your mind to a varying degree.

 

But thats not your biology telling you you have to eat, thats your mind.

 

You can starve yourself to death but it wont be pleasant. Part of that is because of the neurotransmittors that dictate your pleasure reward system.

 

Thats where homeostasis comes in. Your mind fights all these changes, then sends those signals to the hormones throughout the body

 

You body doesnt like change. It wiĺl fight it at all cost, or adapt with a new way to stimulate what the body/mind needs.

 

Rick old bean….I have to take issue with some of what you are saying,

 

You raise a number of points in your replies that made me go…hmmmmmmm.

 

The idea that "natural" is ok……hmmmmmmmmm.

 

 

"By definition, you are addicted to food and water"……hmmmmmmmmmm. What definition of addiction are you using?

 

 

"But thats not your biology telling you you have to eat, thats your mind."…hhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……..My mind is biological and not separate from my body….HOLISTIC is a word that springs to mind.

 

 

And the idea that we as humans were meant to take some of the substances you mention because we have receptors designed for them is not accurate either, yes, morphine and nicotine bind to receptors in our brains, but those receptors were not designed for those chemicals. copied this from a website…... "Morphine, for example, binds to the receptors for endorphin (a natural "morphine" produced by the brain), while nicotine binds to the receptors for acetylcholine."

 

 

Not trying to be difficult but just found your ideas a bit …well….wrong….lol….know what I mean bruv?

Edited March 19, 2015 by limeyangler

[Terry]

yeah he seems to be using a pretty broad and not mainstream definition that I don't subscribe to

[manitoubass2]

 

And your mind is not 'biological'?

 

Just curious what definition of addiction you are using Rick?

Your mind acts biological of course, but its highly influenced by basically everything, this is not debatable.

 

Our understanding of how and why can indeed be questioned, its in our "biological nature" to seek answers, correct?

 

Addiction to me is again, a dirty word.

 

When it harms ones self or others around them, then yes thats a problem.

 

We all have our issues, alot of them revolve around "addictions".

 

You me and everyone on this board. EVERYONE...

 

Every issue you have mentally, revolves around neurotransmittors, all of them. Naturally stimulated or artificially.

 

I know im gonna get alot of flack for my posts because its not "general knowledge".

 

I too put myself through destructive behaviour, so im not judging anyone.

 

Maybe just trying to help people understand??? Im not sure myself... ask ricks GABA, dopamine, serotonin, etc.

[manitoubass2]

yeah he seems to be using a pretty broad and not mainstream definition that I don't subscribe to

Im not sure how you cant see it? What is your definition of addiction?

 

Actually dont, because if your functional and happy just keep doing what your doing

Edited March 19, 2015 by manitoubass2

[Terry]

a quick google and here is the first thing that pops up

 

Addiction is a condition that results when a person ingests a substance (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, nicotine) or engages in an activity (e.g., gambling, sex, shopping) that can be pleasurable but the continued use/act of which becomes compulsive and interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work ...

 

by any definition I have heard Addiction is when it becomes abnormal behavior.... beyond normal and again eating is a normal function

but as I stated before what you eat can be an addiction but not the act of eating