Cellucci blowing smoke on marijuana

Toronto (Red) Star ^ | November 15, 2004 | Editors of the Toronto (Red) Star

[skikvt]

You have a very naive view of its affects. I freely admit that I smoke dope but I only smoke it when I ski and I'm actually well known for the type of skiing that I do. It doesn't affect me adversely and I don't consider myself sick or in need of punishment. My actions don't harm anyone else. I am successful in life and as an adult I should be allowed to make my own choices. In fact I know a lot of people that feel the same way, and a surprising number of them voted for Bush.

[robertpaulsen]

"... but if it's less than 15g there will be no jail time or criminal record."

What will there be? Will there be a fine?

Because with no arrest, no trial, no ticket, no conviction, no jail time, no criminal record, and no fine ... well, I call that a legal product. You don't?

[gdani]

Mucho pot use makes people paranoid and yes, does give a guy boobies.

And don't forget that it makes white women want to have sex with negro jazz musicians.

[robertpaulsen]

If pot remains illegal with a fine, no problem.

I was under the impression that Canada was trying to legalize possession of small amounts.

[Zon]

First, people are forced to pay for public schools which are unconstitutional.
Forced to pay for them even if they never use them. Then they are refused
access to them if they don't ingest certain drugs. Now the parasitical elites
are pushing fort mandatory mental health exams/physicals for school
children. It demonstrates that politicians' and bureaucrats' intent is not
education. Rather, their intent is to control people so that they -- the parasitical
elite -- can continue to hold usurped power and garner unearned paychecks.
That's what it's really about. And whether you acknowledge that's what it
is you still support it. You're either ignorant or incompetent. --
possibly both. You choose.

[robertpaulsen]

You ever use your fire department? Ever call the police? Do you use your library? Community center? Well, you're payin' for them also.

You live in a community, Zon. You're not Jeremiah Johnson. People pitch in a pay for things even though they, themselves, may not use them.

[Zon]

You ever use your fire department? Ever call the police? Do you use your library? Community center? Well, you're payin' for them also.

Only one of those is a valid government function -- police. Obviously you're a collectivist that supports the government sacrificing the individual by initiating harm on person's that have harmed no one but perhaps themselves. BTW, where I grew up there was and still is a volunteer fire department -- not a government function. They provide exemplary service to the community.

If you think a person has harmed you take the person to court before an impartial jury. Do your best to prove that you were harmed. If the jury decides in your favor you will be due restitution for your loss and suffering. That's way too honest for you. You'd rather support the government control over people.

You live in a community, Zon. You're not Jeremiah Johnson. People pitch in a pay for things even though they, themselves, may not use them.

Yeah like the local volunteer fire department, right? 

And no person is forced to pay for it because it's not under government control. Gosh, I bet you hate that.

[TKDietz]

That kind of cracks me up too. I'm not really familiar with Ohio's laws but I heard that possession of up to a 100 grams there will only get you a "civil citation" and a hundred dollar fine but no criminal record and apparently all you get is a civil citation and small fine for growing up to a 100 grams. That's nearly a quarter of a pound.

Canada ought to just model their laws after Ohio's and call it the "Ohio Plan" or something. That would shut people like Cellucci up.

[WildTurkey]

A government that can prohibit what a person puts in their body the same government can force people to put something in their body.

Wrong. Not against the law to inhale, against the law to possess or traffic in.

[Zon]

A government that can prohibit what a person may posses then the same government can force people to posses something. Perhaps a national ID card or chip implant.

Law off the sauce WildTurkey. ;)

BTW, welcome to FreeRepublic.

[avenir]

"I am successful in life and as an adult I should be allowed to make my own choices."

To borrow from Ace Ventura, "Congratulations on all your success, you smell terrific!" (Ooooh ooohh that smell, can you smell that--cough, cough--smellll...)

You're right, you made your own choice when you hooked up with your dealer and scored your weed. And you scored it, no prob, right?

Then whatsup with you tokaz hassling us straights about decriminalization? You aren't entitled to societal approval, and aren't likely to get it. The fact that you have to do your business in the shadows works out for the best--it certainly does not prevent use and abuse of marijuana (case in point, you), but it does place a barrier of forbidenness that MOST people will not cross, thus limiting the level of use and abuse.

Most people actually do respect the concept of law and its limits, even though it seems successful persons such as you are able to break it successfully. Limiting use to the minority is all reasonable people ever did expect from the much ballyhooed, much maligned War On Drugs.

[Wolfie]

What really cracks me up is Cellucci's delusion that this is going to screw with trade. Nothing screws with trade. The big boys won't let it.

[TKDietz]

"The fact that you have to do your business in the shadows works out for the best--it certainly does not prevent use and abuse of marijuana (case in point, you), but it does place a barrier of forbidenness that MOST people will not cross, thus limiting the level of use and abuse."

That's actually not true. According to the SAMHSA's National Study on Drug Abuse and Health, more than half of all adults born from 1954 on have tried marijuana. Since the early seventies, most young people have crossed that "barrier of forbidenness."

See Table 1.2B: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/2k3tabs/PDF/Sect1peTabs19to27.pdf

Note: These numbers are probably low because each year somewhere between 25% to 50% of the people they try to survey do not respond and people who do respond in many cases probably are not entirely honest about illegal activities they have engaged in. Studies have shown that something like 30% to 50% of people surveyed underreport tobacco and alcohol use. It's probably worse for drug use. But, people are more likely to admit past use from years ago than they are to admit current use.

[avenir]

Since it is impossible to verify that "more than half of all adults born from 1954 on have tried marijuana"--since you yourself stated "...people who do respond (to surveys) in many cases probably are not entirely honest about illegal activities they have engaged in"--I'll take those stats lightly.

If they're true, perhaps I should have said "crossed the barrier of forbidenness and STAYED"?

[TKDietz]

"Since it is impossible to verify that "more than half of all adults born from 1954 on have tried marijuana"--since you yourself stated "...people who do respond (to surveys) in many cases probably are not entirely honest about illegal activities they have engaged in"--I'll take those stats lightly."

I take them with a grain of salt as well, especially those for use in the past month and to somewhat of a lesser extent for those for use in the last year. The "ever used" statistics are probably more accurate than the others because as studies have shown people tend to be more honest on that type of question than on questions about current or recent use. All and all though, it would seem logical to conclude that it is far more likely that the survey results are showing less drug use than than really is or has been rather than the other way around.