# Scary Stuff



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Maybe the BC GOv't should start confiscating to distribute to the people who need medical.... 


http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/How+BC...line=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

I am in total agreement......in fact I think I am not feeling well...lol


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

I think you may have missed the entire point of the story.

Living in BC's lower mainland I can relate to the crap they are talking about. The TV gangster mentality here is ridiculous. I can envision half of those boneheads sitting in their living rooms watching the Sopranos or some other gangster franchise and practicing their tough guy lines and intimidation tactics. 

Personally I'm getting kinda tired of seeing jobless roid monkeys in Hummers or Denali's with tinted windows cranking out Tupac while they cruise the streets.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

No surprise.

A simple thing like legalizing marijuana would change things dramatically. Big can of worms I realize, but as they say, Gawd made marijuana. Man made booze. Who do YOU trust, LOL.


Ignoring the reality that rather large percentage of Canadians smoke is a major factor in perpetuating this inequity and the resulting market for criminal activities.

ANYONE who buys a bottle at the Liquor store and frowns on others for smoking a doobie is in my opinion accepting a rather obvious double standard.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> No surprise.
> 
> Ignoring the reality that rather large percentage of Canadians smoke is a major factor in perpetuating this inequity and the resulting market for criminal activities.



It's historical record that boozerunners like Al Capone used to pay politicians to keep Prohibition going, to preserve the source of their incredible illegal incomes.

I've always had my suspicions that something of the same sort is going on today. 

It's the only thing that can explain why we spend so much money on a futile effort to stop the tide from coming in, trying to tell our neighbours what to do with their own pleasures.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

marginalising is bad

doobies have been linked to 3 times the rate of lung cancer and to a dissociative disorder.  and as far as I recall the 6 month twice a week bulldog sessions we had for the running of an addictions recovery program, that was all pot was ever actually linked to.


Booze on the other hand...

The HUGE problem is the chemicals injected into the plants or sprayed or otherwise applied to them. A heroin laced joint is very addictive because heroin is very addictive, the pot is just filler. Oh and, just because there are lots of people that LOVE to say 'yea man that hydroponic super pot is really awesome man total addiciton man first huff man' know this. In testing if pot is addictive the researchers extracted the chemicals in pot and used the extractions up to concentrations no living plant could make and at no level was it found to have any addiciton level higher than water. You get hooked to "hydroponic pot' what you are hooked to is a designer or other drug that has been applied to the plants, the pot is just filler.

So, why invite people into the criminal world over a product who's illegality was created by a man in another country as part of his personal bid to secure the value of his oil and his chemicals company? Most certainly why maintain the risk of chemically contaminated pot with you have no idea what that can be extreamly dangerous and or addicting?

I do not smoke or eat or otherwise use marijuana. Knowing from the ARF and Addictions Recovery and the research side of it though, the criminalising of it is both pointless and dangerous because as a product not worthy of regulation it allures people into the sphear of controle of people who make it their lives endeavours to find people to become full fledged criminals. 



> "You bought the shipment, you're breaking the law already, you can take this package to the other side of town for me now..."


Now, if you asked me about Heroin or Cocain my answer would be a bit different. I personally hate suicide but if a person really wants to go...


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Wild Bill said:


> I've always had my suspicions that something of the same sort is going on today.


Well, there is this
I've also read some disturbing things about opium production in pre- vs. post-invasion Afghanistan, and about British troops being sent to guard poppy fields. The taleban were (are) nasty ignorant bronze-age thugs for sure, but they were always welcome in Washington (hey, more bronze-age thugs whaddaya know) until (a) they made waves wrt the Caspian sea oil pipeline and (b) they set about eradicating poppy cultivation in Afghanistan (and almost succeeded?). 
Makes ya wonder...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/newsbeat/newsid_7376000/7376269.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4926628.stm


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> marginalising is bad
> 
> doobies have been linked to 3 times the rate of lung cancer and to a dissociative disorder.  and as far as I recall the 6 month twice a week bulldog sessions we had for the running of an addictions recovery program, that was all pot was ever actually linked to.
> 
> ...


I don't advocate the use of weed, however it's important to take the "dangers" in context. Three times the rate of lung cancer as tobacco? So if you smoke a pack a day that would be similar to 8 joints a day?

I know people who smoke that much but I sure as hell am not one of them. 

Like booze or any other intoxicant, moderation is the key to safe recreational use in my opinion. 

One or two joints a day is no worse than one or two beers a day. Again, I'm not a research scientist.

As for stuff Injected or sprayed on pot, LMAO, is this Reefer madness again? I know the guys who grow and cure the weed I use and I assure you there's not even pesticides in use. Heroin?

Good gawd. 

If it was legal I'd grow my own. No harm to anyone but me and the amont I smoke....


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

How so. The only dramatic change would be cheap pot for anyone who wants to smoke it in Canada. There would still be as many grow operations because there is still an international market to supply - unless your suggesting that the entire planet embrace weed.



Milkman said:


> No surprise.
> 
> *A simple thing like legalizing marijuana would change things dramatically.* Big can of worms I realize, but as they say, Gawd made marijuana. Man made booze. Who do YOU trust, LOL.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

Your friend may not be using pesticides but I can assure you that in BC, anything that will increase someones crop yield is used - no matter what it is. Designer joints are commonly available even if not by request. It may be nice to believe that the pot producing, selling and using crowd are just a bunch of really nice people that like to use something that's from the earth (heroin and cocaine come from plants too) but the reality is, there is a lot of money to be made in the pot business and they are as cut throat and ruthless as anyone else (unless they are completely stoned of course). 




Milkman said:


> I don't advocate the use of weed, however it's important to take the "dangers" in context. Three times the rate of lung cancer as tobacco? So if you smoke a pack a day that would be similar to 8 joints a day?
> 
> I know people who smoke that much but I sure as hell am not one of them.
> 
> ...


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Milkman said:


> I don't advocate the use of weed, however it's important to take the "dangers" in context. Three times the rate of lung cancer as tobacco? So if you smoke a pack a day that would be similar to 8 joints a day?
> 
> ....
> 
> As for stuff Injected or sprayed on pot, LMAO, is this Reefer madness again? I know the guys who grow and cure the weed I use and I assure you there's not even pesticides in use. Heroin?


I just wanted to address these two points because they are both important ones.

Yes, pot is typically considered a more cancerous product than tobacco because of the method of smoking it. Cigarettes are inhaled and exhaled at much the same rate as normal breathing. Pot it inhaled, and held, and held, and.... So, there is a behavioural difference. I do believe more study is needed on this; however, that is where that finding comes from and why.

The idea of spraying plants or injecting them is quite old. There was one of the big name rockers during the '70s that near killed himself from mixing drugs at the same time using pot as the medium. I believe that cocaine or heroin laced pot also has their own street names. Ultimately, what it means is, an unregulated source is to be considered very suspect. Another way to look at it is, you can purchase alcohol from a government inspected and regulated source, or you can go to a bootlegger. The difference being the government source tends to be clean.

Growing your own or letting your buddy do the organic bit is good, however, that is not what is happening for the majority of people which is not good.


----------



## Metal#J# (Jan 1, 2007)

Almost all of those pot stats/myths that float around as being accurate or true are just plain fawked and anyone who smokes pot or others that use common sense know this. They're desinged by the government campaigns to discourage youth from trying "the gate way drug". 
It's strange that a guy like me, with chronic back and leg pain, could possibly go to jail for trying to get some pain relief by poking a little smot. But hey.......If I didn't have this stomach problem I could have all the free hillbilly heroin I want........and legally drive a car........or how about a bus full of kids.........or operate heavy machinery. Considering the accepted use of booze and pills, you have to wonder, what is the real reason for targeting pot users???


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2008)

Milkman said:


> Like booze or any other intoxicant, moderation is the key to safe recreational use in my opinion.












As to the 'legalizing' of a weed that grows wild. 
Governments have to find a way to regulate
and *TAX* it before they'll consider it. 
The initial _*criminalization*_ of this
plant has conspiracies theories galore. Here's 
a long but fascinating read on the topic.

Pot activist Jack Herer's book The Emperor Wears No Clothes 
is the prime source for the hemp-conspiracy theory. It alleges that in the mid-1930s, "when the new mechanical hemp fiber 
stripping machines to conserve hemp's high-cellulose pulp finally became state of the art, available and affordable," Hearst, 
with enormous holdings in timber acreage and investments in paper manufacturing, "stood to lose billions of dollars and 
perhaps go bankrupt." Meanwhile, DuPont in 1937 had just patented nylon and "a new sulfate/sulfite process for making paper 
from wood pulp" -- so "if hemp had not been made 
illegal, 80 percent of DuPont's business would never have materialized."









Regarding health risks that are pointed out. Cannabis smoked
has closer to five times the tar content as apposed to cig's.
To alleviate this, there's the *vapor genie*.


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

Milkman said:


> ANYONE who buys a bottle at the Liquor store and frowns on others for smoking a doobie is in my opinion accepting a rather obvious double standard.


I second you on this one. Funny how valium and percoset are socially acceptable though.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> The idea of spraying plants or injecting them is quite old. There was one of the big name rockers during the '70s that near killed himself from mixing drugs at the same time using pot as the medium. I believe that cocaine or heroin laced pot also has their own street names. Ultimately, what it means is, an unregulated source is to be considered very suspect. Another way to look at it is, you can purchase alcohol from a government inspected and regulated source, or you can go to a bootlegger. The difference being the government source tends to be clean.


This idea of lacing pot with stronger substances doesn't make any sense to me, from a strictly business viewpoint.

First off, it would add to the price, as these substances are likely not free and of course there is the labour of adding them.

What's more, why would the seller do it? From what I hear NOBODY has ANY problem getting someone to buy their weed! 

Unless they want to offer a far stronger product, at a far higher price. That would put them in a much smaller market niche. The vast majority of pot users have no interest in stronger drugs. In fact, I've read how there's a rapidly growing market for what's known on the street as "hippy weed" that is actually much WEAKER than today's pot! Many older users don't like the stronger pot sold today and will pay for something tamer more similar to the weed of their youth.

As a segue, the fact that today's product is so strong makes it even less scientific to talk about cancer risks from a certain number of joints smoked per day. Stronger product means FEWER joints smoked per day!

I know of no social drinker who might drink one or two beer a day who if they ran out of beer would drink one or two whole bottles of scotch.

As a techie sort of guy I always have to laugh at those attacking pot. It's like virgins denouncing sex. The logic is always dead wrong. "Since all those who got AIDS had sex then all who have sex will get AIDS."

This becomes "Since most heroin users have smoked pot then most pot users go on to use heroin."

It IS the illogic of reefer madness!

The reason is that naysayers are not looking for pure evidence to see where it leads them. They have already decided on their premise as fact and are looking only for evidence that seems to support it, twisting what they find if necessary and ignoring anything that contradicts it.

If pot were legal 99% of the crime would disappear overnight. Pushers would disappear. Who would do such a thing for free?

You know, after reading some of the posts in this thread I'm starting to look suspiciously at that bottle of expensive scotch I drink from once or twice a year. 

Do you think that someone might have added heroin to it to make it stronger and more addictive?

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> Well, there is this
> I've also read some disturbing things about opium production in pre- vs. post-invasion Afghanistan, and about British troops being sent to guard poppy fields. The taleban were (are) nasty ignorant bronze-age thugs for sure, but they were always welcome in Washington (hey, more bronze-age thugs whaddaya know) until (a) they made waves wrt the Caspian sea oil pipeline and (b) they set about eradicating poppy cultivation in Afghanistan (and almost succeeded?).
> Makes ya wonder...
> 
> ...


Without naming names, a few Canadian former mayors, ministers, and prime ministers have been linked to organized crime.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> I just wanted to address these two points because they are both important ones.
> 
> *Yes, pot is typically considered a more cancerous product than tobacco because of the method of smoking it.* Cigarettes are inhaled and exhaled at much the same rate as normal breathing. Pot it inhaled, and held, and held, and.... So, there is a behavioural difference. I do believe more study is needed on this; however, that is where that finding comes from and why.
> 
> ...


Hmm...actually.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> I just wanted to address these two points because they are both important ones.
> 
> Yes, pot is typically considered a more cancerous product than tobacco because of the method of smoking it. Cigarettes are inhaled and exhaled at much the same rate as normal breathing. Pot it inhaled, and held, and held, and.... So, there is a behavioural difference. I do believe more study is needed on this; however, that is where that finding comes from and why.
> 
> ...


Hmm...actually...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Stratin2traynor said:


> How so. The only dramatic change would be cheap pot for anyone who wants to smoke it in Canada. There would still be as many grow operations because there is still an international market to supply - unless your suggesting that the entire planet embrace weed.


Point taken.



Embrace is not the word I would choose to use, but yes it's just as dumb for ANY nation to ban weed as it is for Canada.

Criminilize booze, a fermented and / or disiled chemical, some would not inacurately describe as poison, or legalize marijuana which grows naturally in many climates.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> Hmm...actually...
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html


Only those tryning to get blasted really smoke weed any differently than tobacco.

The whole ritualistic passing of the joint and holding the smoke is just plain silly IMO. 

For me it's a relaxing "cocktail" after a hard days work or after a gig. At the risk of coming off "holier than thou" I have NEVER, in more than thirty years of gigging and somewhat shorter a period of doing sound, EVER walked on stage after smoking.

There's a time and a place and I'm actually offended by the fact that anyone would sip their Ceaser or Marguerita and look down their noses at me for enjoying a nice relaxing puff.

AND, the reason most people don't grow their own is because of the risk of prosecution (or is that persecution?).


----------



## rhh7 (Mar 14, 2008)

Thanks for posting this article, Starbuck. Very interesting, and scary indeed.

I do not use or advocate illegal drugs. But I believe that the "war on drugs" has been lost. 

Legalizing drugs could not be any worse than the present situation. 

Gang members are shooting it out on the streets. And the entire system has been corrupted by the huge flow of cash.

Prohibition does not seem to have worked too well historically.


----------



## Metal#J# (Jan 1, 2007)

I also think that there is some cofusion when people hear that pot has chemicals added to it or has been "laced". I'd have to say 99% of the time they are refering to growth stimulating chemicals, not adding other narcotics. These are the same chemicals added to the hydroponic fruits and vegetables we consume every day. All of which are flushed out with clean water before consumption. These chemicals stimulate/increase the growth of the tiny little bits of resin on the bud. Remember, it's not the leaf that gets you high. Stimulating growth at the right time in the cycle can dramatically increase the potentcy. This enables the consumer to use much less to get the same effect with less risk to their health.......Unless you like smoking huge amounts of dope. This is where you can throw your pot stats out the window. A person can smoke a piece of pot the size of a jelly bean and get the same effect as smoking several joints of you neighbours homestone. Comparing it to cigs is just retarded IMO. I'm not smoking 25+ joints a day......In comparison I'm not even smoking 1. And just think of all the un-natural chemicals in cigs added post growth.

+1 on the vapourizer. Almost no risk to your health.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

I think the arguments for both sides are flawed and lacking any common sense. They are simply constructed of manipulated statistics and emotional statements.

As for your statement about crime disappearing if pot was legalized...I don't think so Tim...it kinda falls within the parameters of my first statement.

(as always...without confrontation):food-smiley-004: 



Wild Bill said:


> *As a techie sort of guy I always have to laugh at those attacking pot. It's like virgins denouncing sex. The logic is always dead wrong. "Since all those who got AIDS had sex then all who have sex will get AIDS."*
> 
> *
> If pot were legal 99% of the crime would disappear overnight.*
> ...


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Stratin2traynor said:


> I think the arguments for both sides are flawed and lacking any common sense. They are simply constructed of manipulated statistics and emotional statements.
> 
> As for your statement about crime disappearing if pot was legalized...I don't think so Tim...it kinda falls within the parameters of my first statement.
> 
> (as always...without confrontation):food-smiley-004:


Well, I went back to your first statement and I still don't see the logic. If pot were legal in Canada then there would be no need for grow ops. We would have hemp farms.

No doubt the bulk of their crop would be exported to other countries where pot is still illegal. So what? That would be their problem, not ours. Uncle Sam seems to have done diddleysquat to prevent guns which are legal in the States from coming into our country, where they are not. Why should we worry about pot going down south? Do unto others as they do unto you. It makes them much more polite.

If pot were legal it would be cheap. Crime doesn't bother with cheap stuff. They're in it for the big money.

If I've missed something in what you've said perhaps you could point it out to me.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

If pot were legal in Canada there would be as many grow ops if not more. Your average user would likely grow a plant or two or three (big deal - other than the smell which a lot of people really can't stand)...but then exporters would have no fear of prosecution if they decided to grow a couple of thousand plants if not more - likely way more. With all of the grows comes the theft of hydro. Also the copious use of pesticides and nutrients to increase yield which eventually gets pumped into our water supply through improper drainage. 

I agree, that if pot were legal in Canada it would be cheap. Pot users in Canada wouldn't have to spend much to get high. Pot would still be an extremely valuable commodity for export. 

As for the pot going south...I really don't care. But you have to ask yourself what comes North when pot goes south. Just large amounts of US dollars? Nope. Cocaine too. Lots of it for our kids to try and maybe even get hooked on. Which is great for everyone in the business. Customers everywhere. Sucks for us because then we have to take extra security measures to protect ourselves against theft. 

The people breaking into our vehicles, homes and businesses aren't gentle pot heads. There may be a few but I would bet that the majority of them are crack heads, meth addicts.

Is marihuana THE "Gateway Drug". If you try pot does that mean it's just a matter of time because you become a crack whore...I'm sure the Gov't would like us to believe that. But, I don't think so. I think what the anti-drug people are trying to say is that if you open the door to using "illegal marihuana" then what would stop you from giving cocaine a try. It is also illegal and comes from a plant. What about opium gum or heroin. Poppies are so pretty, how can heroin be bad. 

To be honest with you, I don't know what the answer is but I am confident that it is not "let's make pot legal and all of our problems will go away."

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Stratin2traynor said:


> If pot were legal in Canada there would be as many grow ops if not more. Your average user would likely grow a plant or two or three (big deal - other than the smell which a lot of people really can't stand)...but then exporters would have no fear of prosecution if they decided to grow a couple of thousand plants if not more - likely way more. With all of the grows comes the theft of hydro. Also the copious use of pesticides and nutrients to increase yield which eventually gets pumped into our water supply through improper drainage.
> 
> I agree, that if pot were legal in Canada it would be cheap. Pot users in Canada wouldn't have to spend much to get high. Pot would still be an extremely valuable commodity for export.
> 
> ...


Well, I thought grow ops stole their hydro to prevent the large draw from attracting unwanted attention. If the grass was legal then it would likely be easier and cheaper to pay the hydro bill. The hydro cost is trivial to the profit of the crop. They steal it only to hide their operation.

As for cocaine coming north, looks to me like a HUGE pile of the stuff has been coming in for years! No sign of it slowing down, either. Why not legalize cocaine?

I mean really, what are we trying to achieve here? Only a small percentage of people who try these drugs become addicts. Even those who become addicts would likely not hurt anyone but themselves except for having to turn to crime because of the high cost of illegal drugs. We would save so much money if we legalized drugs that we could probably afford to give each and every addict his own personal rehab centre, complete with his own Dr. Drew! Rehab and education facilities would have all the money they could need if we didn't waste so much on the futile Prohibition-style "war on drugs".

As a Canadian I'm getting very tired of paying a huge pile of taxes to no positive end, just to force a fellow citizen to do what SOMEONE ELSE feels is good for him!

I'm getting even more tired of being told I can't do or have something because somebody ELSE has a problem!

We are all entitled to our own view, of course. I respect yours. Still, there's a big important difference. Those of my view are not calling for taxing other people or telling them what to do with their own bodies. We believe that it is the fact that drugs are illegal that makes them obscenely profitable, giving motivation for pushers on streets and in schoolyards. 

Frankly, a LOT of us are getting very fed up and resentful!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Frankly, a LOT of us are getting very fed up and resentful!
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


I was born that way.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I have a, well not a concern so much, but more a question.
If marijuana was legalized, and if that drastically cut down on the grow ops, and the criminal activity associated with them and the sale of marijuana, etc., what other activities would the "criminals" turn to?

While some may just turn to growing it legally, instead of illegally--there are those that would just turn to some other criminal activity. So the reduction on crime may not be a great as some here suggest. There would be a decrease in one area, but it would be at least partially offset by increases in other areas.

It is something that needs to be considered in evaluating arguments for & against legalization.

Ultimately it's not so much an argument for or against legalization--but it has a bearing on certain arguments for & against.


----------



## Metal#J# (Jan 1, 2007)

zontar said:


> I have a, well not a concern so much, but more a question.
> If marijuana was legalized, and if that drastically cut down on the grow ops, and the criminal activity associated with them and the sale of marijuana, etc., what other activities would the "criminals" turn to?
> 
> While some may just turn to growing it legally, instead of illegally--there are those that would just turn to some other criminal activity. So the reduction on crime may not be a great as some here suggest. There would be a decrease in one area, but it would be at least partially offset by increases in other areas.
> ...


I can't believe you just said that!!! 

Yes.......all pot smokers are criminals and once it's legal we'll all turn to raping old ladies, stealing cars and masterbating in public.........cuz what else would we do? 

WTF

J


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2008)

Just a fantasy. Seed the clouds with tons of seeds








and let them grow and flourish everywhere.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Metal#J# said:


> I can't believe you just said that!!!
> 
> Yes.......all pot smokers are criminals and once it's legal we'll all turn to raping old ladies, stealing cars and masterbating in public.........cuz what else would we do?
> 
> ...



That's not what I wrote. It's not what I meant. I'm not sure how you got that out of what I wrote. I wasn't referring to pot smokers. I was referring to those who have the big grow-ops. They can rake in a lot of money with them. One of the arguments floating around has to do with gang wars & crimes committed by those involved in the grow-ops. The argument basically goes that if pot was legal they'd no longer have to be involved in those activities, thus cutting the crime rate. However, while I made stated that this was neither an argument for or against legalization, it was a counter to the argument that legalization would reduce crime. If it were legalized then grow ops as we know them would not need to exist on a large scale (small ones for personal or small circle use may still exist--as others have pointed out.) The original article spoke of the violence & crime that gangs growing & selling pot are involved in. Well if it were legal they wouldn't have the same profit, and so the argument goes that they'd get out of the business and therefore less crime. That's what I was referring to. 

If pot was legalized, many of them would shift their focus to other illegal, and profitable activities. (Yes, some may switch to growing legal pot--but it wouldn't be as profitable.)

So it's a scenario to consider in light of one of the arguments. It is not in & of itself an argument for or against legalizing marijuana.

And it has *nothing* to do with the average pot smoker. I am not saying they would turn to crime. Their pot use would be legal, so they'd just keep smoking it. That statement had nothing to do with anybody here.

Hopefully that clears it up for you


----------



## Metal#J# (Jan 1, 2007)

zontar said:


> That's not what I wrote. It's not what I meant. I'm not sure how you got that out of what I wrote. I wasn't referring to pot smokers. I was referring to those who have the big grow-ops. They can rake in a lot of money with them. One of the arguments floating around has to do with gang wars & crimes committed by those involved in the grow-ops. The argument basically goes that if pot was legal they'd no longer have to be involved in those activities, thus cutting the crime rate. However, while I made stated that this was neither an argument for or against legalization, it was a counter to the argument that legalization would reduce crime. If it were legalized then grow ops as we know them would not need to exist on a large scale (small ones for personal or small circle use may still exist--as others have pointed out.) The original article spoke of the violence & crime that gangs growing & selling pot are involved in. Well if it were legal they wouldn't have the same profit, and so the argument goes that they'd get out of the business and therefore less crime. That's what I was referring to.
> 
> If pot was legalized, many of them would shift their focus to other illegal, and profitable activities. (Yes, some may switch to growing legal pot--but it wouldn't be as profitable.)
> 
> ...


 Sorry....still don't agree with what you are saying. If a person or group of people were running a grow op, I think they already have the means to expand their business to more hardcore drugs. I'm sure selling large amounts of coke at one time is less conspicuous than having a house, or several, operating 24/7, that stink and glow from every crack. If they wanted to be in that business they would. I'm sure that's a bigger leap than you think for most people because if they're in the business, they're most likely aware of the difference in consequence between the punishments for growing pot, and selling/manufacturing coke,or crack, or meth........

Of all the grow ops in Canada, I doubt that the majority are run by organized crime. Most of them are average Joe's growing for personal use and/or to suppliment their shitty income by selling to their friends. I don't think they are so dependent on their grow ops that they would automatically turn to other crimes in the event that pot is legalized. The ones that will, probably already are.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Main point in *bold*
*Once again--this misses my point. My point was not to offer an argument against legalization (nor to offer an argument for it.)

I was merely addressing an argument for legalization, and pointing out a potential flaw in the argument. That in and of itself is not an argument either way in the debate--simply questioning something.

If the argument is that legalizing pot will cut down on crime, then the argument is addressing, at least in part, large scale grow ops run by more than just someone growing for personal use & for their friends. The argument for legalization is the argument that is bringing up a point you dispute, not me. * 

secondary point addressing your post-
Don't kid yourself--there are a lot of grow ops that are beyond personal use & selling to friends. The arrests of the people involved and the extent of their operation makes the news on a regular basis--so much that's it's old hat by now, but it is on the increase. As the arrests increase, the people responsible adapt their tactics. Now instead of having a home where nobody is ever seen, they pay couples with kids to live in the houses so they look lived in. There are kids' toys in the yards, etc. It's not the couple who's growing the pot--they're being paid to make the house look lived in, because they live there. Maybe most grow ops are small scale--that's fine--it doesn't affect the question I had for one of the arguments. It doesn't disprove the argument, but was meant as a question to those who use the argument.
It has nothing to do with what you have posted in response to my posts. You are not using their argument, and seem to be discounting it--therefore you are not someone who has to answer the question I asked. In fact your statement-


> I think they already have the means to expand their business to more hardcore drugs.


fits right in with what I am asking. There's no contradiction.

You're welcome to disagree with me, but if you do disagree, please disagree with what I'm actually saying, not with something I'm not even coming close to saying.


----------



## Metal#J# (Jan 1, 2007)

zontar said:


> I have a, well not a concern so much, but more a question.
> 
> There would be a decrease in one area, but it would be at least partially offset by increases in other areas.
> 
> ...


These are statements....not questions......based on an assumption. Which is unlikely IMO. The question you asked (If marijuana was legalized, and if that drastically cut down on the grow ops, and the criminal activity associated with them and the sale of marijuana, etc., what other activities would the "criminals" turn to?) was just a set up to make the above statement which is just opinion and has no real bearing on the argument for or against legalization. Like I said before, the people that you are assuming would make this transition, probably already have or are as well. Legalizing pot would not increase the existing level of criminal activity by financially forcing ex grow operators to find alternate criminal activities to profit from. It may allow them more time to focus their resources on activities they're ALREADY involved in. Society is so far detached from the realities of the drug trade that we would never notice a difference. Mostly these things are beyond our control regardless.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Only those tryning to get blasted really smoke weed any differently than tobacco.
> 
> The whole ritualistic passing of the joint and holding the smoke is just plain silly IMO.
> 
> ...


I was simply pointing out that regardless of how it is smoked, pot is not more carcinogenic than tobacco. As a matter of fact, based on the research I quoted, it apparently isn't at all.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Stratin2traynor said:


> If pot were legal in Canada there would be as many grow ops if not more. Your average user would likely grow a plant or two or three (big deal - other than the smell which a lot of people really can't stand)...but then exporters would have no fear of prosecution if they decided to grow a couple of thousand plants if not more - likely way more. With all of the grows comes the theft of hydro. Also the copious use of pesticides and nutrients to increase yield which eventually gets pumped into our water supply through improper drainage.
> 
> I agree, that if pot were legal in Canada it would be cheap. Pot users in Canada wouldn't have to spend much to get high. Pot would still be an extremely valuable commodity for export.
> 
> ...



No, ALL of our problems would not go away, but decent working people would NOT face criminal charges and the resulting record for doing something less harmfull than drinking the same shot of whiskey that the cop who busted them and the judge who convicted them enjoyed after doing so.

It's only a matter of time. One of the things I love most about Canada is that we tend to think for ourselves and evolve more quickly in a social sense than many other nations.

It's time to take our heads out of our ases and correct this nonsense.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> I was simply pointing out that regardless of how it is smoked, pot is not more carcinogenic than tobacco. As a matter of fact, based on the research I quoted, it apparently isn't at all.


That's good. I'm glad to know it. I was just reinforcing your argument with my statements, not questioning it.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Wild Bill said:


> This idea of lacing pot with stronger substances doesn't make any sense to me, from a strictly business viewpoint.
> 
> First off, it would add to the price, as these substances are likely not free and of course there is the labour of adding them.
> 
> ...


My two cents would fall into your response here, Bill. As an occasional toker back in the day.... (I don't think I have had a toke in at least 5-6 years or so) There was for sure a change in potency over the years. There was a time when a few buds could hang out and smoke 3-4 jays and have a great time. But I have come across some weed that would make you crawl into a corner and shudder for 4 hours after 3-4 tokes. I think thats when I started to not do it anymore. It was just taking me way further than I had cared to go. For the record, I have never popped a pill or put anything up my nose or viens and have never even considered it. I always, and still do consider weed as a harmless endeavor. I also have my bottle of Glen Fiddich that gets dusted off about 4-5 times a year.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> My two cents would fall into your response here, Bill. As an occasional toker back in the day.... (I don't think I have had a toke in at least 5-6 years or so) There was for sure a change in potency over the years. There was a time when a few buds could hang out and smoke 3-4 jays and have a great time. But I have come across some weed that would make you crawl into a corner and shudder for 4 hours after 3-4 tokes. I think thats when I started to not do it anymore. It was just taking me way further than I had cared to go. For the record, I have never popped a pill or put anything up my nose or viens and have never even considered it. I always, and still do consider weed as a harmless endeavor. I also have my bottle of Glen Fiddich that gets dusted off about 4-5 times a year.


This wasn't directed to me but I hope you don't mind if I comment.

Regarding the weed that would cause such a reaction I'm of the opinion that it really may not have been the weed. Although some is stronger than others, and the weed grown now is pretty much ALL stronger than it used to be, sometimes people get mild paranoid reactions to weed and always have. It does have that element sometimes. 
Perhaps that's one reason I never have and never intend to perform music or really any task that requires confidence and clear mindedness while under the influence.

As for the potency, it's a simple matter of smoking less. 

There's generally a bottle of wine and a few beers in my house at any given time, mostly for my wife's enjoyment, but neither the weed nor the alcohol are out of their place in our priorities. Like gambling, and other things that are relatively harmless in the right amounts and at the right times, weed can ruin your life if you allow it to.

Personal responsibility is real.


----------



## rhh7 (Mar 14, 2008)

*Cost of imprisoning drug offenders*

Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States

This is a truly shocking report:

http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/poor/pp.html


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Milkman said:


> This wasn't directed to me but I hope you don't mind if I comment.
> 
> Regarding the weed that would cause such a reaction I'm of the opinion that it really may not have been the weed. Although some is stronger than others, and the weed grown now is pretty much ALL stronger than it used to be, sometimes people get mild paranoid reactions to weed and always have. It does have that element sometimes.
> Perhaps that's one reason I never have and never intend to perform music or really any task that requires confidence and clear mindedness.
> ...


No issues with what you have said. I agree.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> No issues with what you have said. I agree.


LOL, Late edit to my post.


Perhaps that's one reason I never have and never intend to perform music or really any task that requires confidence and clear mindedness.


"WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE"


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Well for any of you that may be interested in an intersting read. 

http://www.amazon.com/Romancing-Mary-Jane-Failed-Marijuana/dp/1550547496

This was written by a former producer with the CBC. He took a year off and decided to grow some BC bud. the research and what he found make for a very good read. However, this was some time ago (maybe 10yrs) and from the sounds of it, the dynamic out there has changed BIGTIME. That's what concerns me the most, the gangs and resulting criminality that leaches into the landscape.


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

There is definitely a pot problem here. There ain't no good stuff to be had! What I see, rather than spiking, is dilution. They take perfectly good pot and wash it with any number of solvents which leech off a certain percentage of the good leaving a weaker product which sells for the same price. Then the oil that was extracted is cut, usually with a petroleum product, and sold for more profit.

As it is in the corporate world, (two sides of the same coin?), it is all about INSANE profits now, never mind customer service or honest products, whatever you can do to squeeze as much $$ as possible is the new mission statement.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

I wish posts could be deleted.


----------

