It is a great day in Canada
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
experiment
It is not an experiment.
No, it's a ****ing disaster.
-
Now tax it! Why not? They tax alcohol & tobacco, so why not tax (and regulate / control the purity of) drugs as well. In fact, make teh whole lot legal, and tax 'em. The TV adverts would be interesting ... :laugh: In all seriousness, making it legal improves the quality for users and massively reduces costs for police forces who spend far, far too much time dealing with minor possession charges. And no, I don't use drugs - and haven't for twenty or more years.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
[This](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45806255) BBC article discusses this at a high level (see what I did there?). Here's one quote from it making an argument I've been hearing for months:
Concerns remain, including about the readiness for police forces to tackle drug impaired driving.
How does this argument even make sense? Impaired driving has never been legal, and that is not changing today. So how has this been handled until now? Are they suggesting that police forces, all this time, have never been able to "tackle drug impaired driving"? In what manner are they "not ready" for something that's remaining the same?
dandy72 wrote:
How does this argument even make sense?
The problem is one of proof. We have tests for how much alcohol is in someone's system and we can set legal limits, but not so for other drugs. In fact the UK has only recently started using road-side drug detection kits so the tech is getting there but it's nowhere near as easy as telling if someone is "too drunk" to drive.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Now tax it!
You think they're not already doing that? Current estimates place the figure at $400M in the first year alone.
Expect that to rise: tobacco duty receipts in the UK are around £9 billion per year (around 15 billion canadian dollars). We have around twice the population Canadia does, so even if you halve the tax receipts ...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
dandy72 wrote:
How does this argument even make sense?
The problem is one of proof. We have tests for how much alcohol is in someone's system and we can set legal limits, but not so for other drugs. In fact the UK has only recently started using road-side drug detection kits so the tech is getting there but it's nowhere near as easy as telling if someone is "too drunk" to drive.
-
Expect that to rise: tobacco duty receipts in the UK are around £9 billion per year (around 15 billion canadian dollars). We have around twice the population Canadia does, so even if you halve the tax receipts ...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
No, it's a ****ing disaster.
What disaster is it? I don't see any disaster? How about states where it is legal since many years? Any disaster there?
-
What disaster is it? I don't see any disaster? How about states where it is legal since many years? Any disaster there?
The evidence is all there if you care to go and look for it. Legalisation of drugs has never done anything but harm.
-
So again - since people have had cars and have been allowed on public roads, the police haven't been in a position to charge someone with impaired driving when they're high? I'm still not buying it. They have the means.
Laws need definition. How do you "define" if someone is impaired if you can't objectively measure or detect it? People driving while impaired from drugs *is* a big problem and the police often can't do anything about it. And of course it's not just the dope-heads driving while under the influence, their brains are so addled and useless they'll still be a danger even when not under the influence.
-
The evidence is all there if you care to go and look for it. Legalisation of drugs has never done anything but harm.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
The evidence is all there if you care to go and look for it.
Sorry, I don't see any. It is probably only in your head.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Legalisation of drugs has never done anything but harm.
Care to share examples? Don't show examples of people on drugs throwing up on the streets. We can see that in every country, legal or not. And remember, this is just pot. Other drugs are still illegal.
-
They were so mellow and relaxed, Canadian stereotype on steroids :) [let me find a link to it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QmRZ4j0uW4)
Shouldn't be stereotypes on weed?
-
Pot is finally legal.
I lived with someone who smoked skunk throughout the day from the moment they woke up to just before they went to sleep. I never once had the desire to take up the habit when I saw the effect it had on them. That said - there are apparently beneficial aspects for some medical conditions and it's probably a good thing that people who can benefit from it, as a medicine, will not need to visit their doctor or as in the case of the UK not have previously had access to it.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
I lived with someone who smoked skunk throughout the day from the moment they woke up to just before they went to sleep. I never once had the desire to take up the habit when I saw the effect it had on them. That said - there are apparently beneficial aspects for some medical conditions and it's probably a good thing that people who can benefit from it, as a medicine, will not need to visit their doctor or as in the case of the UK not have previously had access to it.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
GuyThiebaut wrote:
I lived with someone who smoked skunk throughout the day from the moment they woke up to just before they went to slee
Sure, everybody will start doing just that. I am an occasional pot smoker. I smoke mostly on weekends, and not every weekend. Like many of my friends, who hold very good paying jobs and perform very well. Do not take your only experience with a heavy pot smoker to generalize.
-
Very Large Brain wrote:
but many of them don't even practice their religion.
OK. But you are still dodging the actual question. How does religion prevent you from being a free thinker?
Very Large Brain wrote:
a registered Christian.
Not sure what that means. Do you mean a member of a Christian church or do you actually have to register with the government?
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
011111100010 wrote:
How does religion prevent you from being a free thinker?
Can't speak for the other religions, but you are to think as the pope mandates. Religion is accepting fairy-tales, not "thinking".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
I lived with someone who smoked skunk throughout the day from the moment they woke up to just before they went to slee
Sure, everybody will start doing just that. I am an occasional pot smoker. I smoke mostly on weekends, and not every weekend. Like many of my friends, who hold very good paying jobs and perform very well. Do not take your only experience with a heavy pot smoker to generalize.
What makes you think I was generalising? Did you read what I wrote rather than read into what I wrote?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
011111100010 wrote:
How does religion prevent you from being a free thinker?
Can't speak for the other religions, but you are to think as the pope mandates. Religion is accepting fairy-tales, not "thinking".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Can't speak for the other religions
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Religion is accepting
Then don't.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
but you are to think as the pope mandates.
That's Catholics only. And I don't know if it's true or not.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Religion is accepting fairy-tales, not "thinking".
How so? Even Christ said if you want to know if what he is teaching is true, try it. You can't get more "thinking" than that.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
What makes you think I was generalising? Did you read what I wrote rather than read into what I wrote?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
GuyThiebaut wrote:
What makes you think I was generalising?
Why even mentioning then? I thought you wanted to make some kind of point.
-
[This](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45806255) BBC article discusses this at a high level (see what I did there?). Here's one quote from it making an argument I've been hearing for months:
Concerns remain, including about the readiness for police forces to tackle drug impaired driving.
How does this argument even make sense? Impaired driving has never been legal, and that is not changing today. So how has this been handled until now? Are they suggesting that police forces, all this time, have never been able to "tackle drug impaired driving"? In what manner are they "not ready" for something that's remaining the same?
dandy72 wrote:
for something that's remaining the same?
I imagine the number of high drivers will increase now that it is legal. So, no, I don't think it is remaining the same.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
What makes you think I was generalising? Did you read what I wrote rather than read into what I wrote?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Can't speak for the other religions
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Religion is accepting
Then don't.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
but you are to think as the pope mandates.
That's Catholics only. And I don't know if it's true or not.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Religion is accepting fairy-tales, not "thinking".
How so? Even Christ said if you want to know if what he is teaching is true, try it. You can't get more "thinking" than that.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
1. At the time that Christ supposedly lived, anyone who was left-handed was assumed to be evil. 2. After reading the bible from cover to cover (I really have: some fun stuff, a bit predictable in parts, should make a good series of fantasy action movies) I did not find any mention of this Christ person supporting left-handed rights or that left-handed people were not evil. How do you live with yourself having this hypocritical, lefty... should we call it "life-style"?
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
