Forums | MacLife

But it still doesn't mean people wouldn't die by their hands. The reason why people are dying doesn't seem as relevant as their actual deaths.

Steyr AUG wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

And watch worker productivity spiral down the toilet, sounds like a great plan.

Link?  Legalized marijuana causes a drop in worker productivity?

Think about it a bit.

I thought about it and came to the conclusion that you are wrong. Can you please provide a link, or is this another one of your "trolling the non-committal way*" things.

*Or whatever the name of the thread Oatmeal once made a sticky about concerning your trolling.

Last edited by Mr. McPhee (2005-03-04 4:51 pm)

Did I miss the part in the article about the bad guy having been a meth addict and god-only-knows-what-else addict?  What I'm getting at; Of all the pot-heads/growers that I've know, none of them have been this violent.  It just seems to me that there had to have been some other drug involved.



PS I didn't read every post, so if I missed something, I'm sorry.

jkahless wrote:

Aye, cause productivity was in the smurf from the beginning of history to the 1930s when marijuana was made illegal.

I know this is a topic about marijuana but how will the productivity be of people on PCP, you know I have detailed files on this!

Mars_Attacks wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Mars_Attacks wrote:

what the smurf are you talking about.

Mars_Attacks wrote:

This kind of complete disrespect for the law is inherintly American.
It's taught on the streets, TV and videogames that are today's babysitters.

I'm truly sorry this crap has moved north.

That was a genuinely sincere statement?

I find that highly doubtful.

Still more personal attacks?
Finished yet?

I think it's a boy who cried wolf type situation. We've so often seen you laughing at other people's deaths, and making nasty-ass comments, that it's just impossible for some folks to beleive that you're being sincere.

It doesn't help that there's been an awful lot of sarcasm around here lately ....

[Tycho?] wrote:

This is really going to smurf smurf up here.

Now police officials are calling these grow-ops a plague on society, and they need harsher penalties. I have no idea how someone can rationally come to these conclusions.

How the hell are harsher penalties going to prevent things like this? The guy who did this was either extremely violent or crazy, probably both. If you are willing to kill 4 cops, you're willing to do pretty much anything. He had made moonshine previously, growing weed was just an easy way to get a lot of money. Harsher laws will not prevent this sort of person from doing this.

If you legalize it, the problem suddenly goes away. Weed is like, well, a weed. It is VERY easy to grow, anyone can do it. The only reason its so expensive is because its illegal, and so its only produced in limited quantities. If it was legal and people could grow small amounts for themselves, or have licesned growers, the price would be a quarter of what it was before. Suddenly growing weed wont get you rich quick, no more than growing apples would. These crazy people who do it wouldn't do it anymore because it wouldn't make them money.

Making the penalties harsher if anything will drive up the price. Then you just get a higher concentration of crazies and organized crime orginizations growing stuff, which is better for nobody.

I bet this will put a dent into the move to decriminalization. The example of the US should prove to everyone that super-harsh penalties not only dont work, but cause a great many other problems.

I don't think this is going to cause a major policy shift. No one's gonna sieze on it for political purposes (at least not much).

No doubt they'll conduct an investigation to see how this happened. I suspect it will turn up mistakes made by the mounties. There will be procedural changes. But I don't expect anything major, in political/legal terms, to result from this.

the net result of the decriminalization argument is that we should allow irrational people to do drugs, becuase of the costs of trying to stop them from using them.

no matter how you look at it, it comes down to choice a living with more drug-addled idiots on the streets, or trying to deal with them as criminals.

its a no win situation either way, imho.  and i am not sure which is the lesser of evils.  i think i still lean toward criminalizing pot... for if we ever did decriminilize it, it would be so heavily regulated and controled we'd still have a problem.

and it could even get worse.

more or less wrote:

the net result of the decriminalization argument is that we should allow irrational people to do drugs, becuase of the costs of trying to stop them from using them.

no matter how you look at it, it comes down to choice a living with more drug-addled idiots on the streets, or trying to deal with them as criminals.

its a no win situation either way, imho.  and i am not sure which is the lesser of evils.  i think i still lean toward criminalizing pot... for if we ever did decriminilize it, it would be so heavily regulated and controled we'd still have a problem.

and it could even get worse.

I see no link between decriminalizing pot and "living with more drug-addled idiots on the streets."

I don't think it's a given that decriminalization will result in significantly higher use in the long term.

Besides, walk down any city street in the summertime, and you'll find it's already full of drug-addled idiots, most of them teenagers. At least that's the way it is in Toronto (and Vancouver and Montreal).