Bill C-26

Bill C-26 … chart.html

I humored myself and watched 3mins.  What a stoner this guy is!!!
To say that being high on the reefer is not being impaired made me shut the thing down.  Didnt have the time nor patience to waste another minute listening to a guy calling himself the “marijuana man”.

Soggy ease up on the reefer.

Watched the whole thing, myself. Total idiot.

Obviously, Marijuana hasn’t had an effect on this idiots mind.  :confused:  This will definitely help getting marijuana legalized.  DUH!

These are ad hominem attacks and don’t bring forth any factual arguments.

I was hoping to get some intelligent debate on the extent of the Bill itself. Mr. Harper is adopting the right wing “drugs bad” argument and little else. This is only an extension of the American Drug War which has given us more plentiful, cheaper, and stronger drugs, which in the case of marijuana is not even a problem since there are only a finite number of anandamide receptors in the brain.

Drugs ARE bad. And even if they WEREN’T bad, they’re still illegal. Don’t get caught with weed in your car, don’t go to jail. Simple as that.

Okay, insulin is bad, so is Aspirin, heart medications, etc. All I get from you is a reflection of the propaganda most seem to accept as factual.

I want to make it clear that I am NOT advocating driving while impaired. The problem is the lack of any way of testing for impairment.


"The detrimental impact of alcohol on highway safety has been well documented. Marijuana’s opponents claim that it, too, causes significant impairment and that any increase in use will lead to increased highway accidents and fatalities.


"In high doses, marijuana probably produces driving impairment in most people. However, there is no evidence that marijuana, in current consumption patterns, contributes substantially to the rate of vehicular accidents in America.

"A number of studies have looked for evidence of drugs in the blood or urine of drivers involved in fatal crashes. All have found alcohol present in 50% or more. Marijuana has been found much less often. Furthermore, in the majority of cases where marijuana has been detected, alcohol has been detected as well. 77

"For example, a recent study sponsored by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) involving analysis of nearly 2000 fatal accident cases, found 6.7 % of drivers positive for marijuana. In more than two-thirds of those, alcohol was present and may have been the primary contributor to the fatal outcome. 78
To accurately assess marijuana’s contribution to fatal crashes, the positive rate among deceased drivers would have to be compared to the positive rate from a random sample of drivers not involved in fatal accidents. Since the rate of past-month marijuana use for Americans above the legal driving age is about 12 percent, on any given day a substantial proportion of all drivers would test positive, particularly since marijuana s metabolites remain in blood and urine long after its psychoactive effects are finished.
A recent study found that one-third of those stopped for “reckless driving” between the hours of 7 p.m. and 2 a.m. - mostly young males - tested positive for marijuana (and no other drugs).79 To be meaningful, these test results would have to be compared to those from a matched control group of drivers.

"A number of driving simulator studies have shown that marijuana does not produce the kind of psycho-motor impairment evident with modest doses of alcohol. 80 In fact, in a recent NHTSA study, the only statistically significant outcome associated with marijuana was that drivers drove more slowly. 81

"A recent study of actual driving ability under the influence of cannabis - employing the same protocol used to test the impairment-potential of medicinal drugs - evaluated the impact of placebo and three active THC doses in three driving trials, including one in high-density urban traffic.

"Dose-related impairment was observed in drivers’ ability to maintain steady lateral position. However, even with the highest dose of THC, impairment was relatively minor - comparable to that with blood-alcohol concentrations of between .03 and .07 % and many legal medications. Drivers under the influence of marijuana also tended to decrease their speed and approach other cars more cautiously.
While recognizing some limitations of this study, the authors conclude that “THC is not a profoundly impairing drug.” … th12.shtml

Anyway, any comments on the Bill itself?

Really… If you’re diabetic  :confused:

Insulin is medically necessary to sustain life if you are Diabetic.  Marijuana or other illegal drugs are NOT necessary to sustain life.  :confused: :confused:

Alcohol is not necessary for life; why isn’t it illegal. Why is marijuana illegal? Racist laws initially, political now … based on nothing, nada, except that the brown people are coming to get you.

Just because something is illegal, doesn’t make it a just law.

You say drugs are bad. Then you say they aren’t just because the drug is insulin?

I need a better argument other than “It’s bad just because I believe it is.”

I’ve seen weed used successfully as a sleep aid, pain medication, and anti depressant. Prescription sleep aids, pain medication, and anti depressants are NASTY drugs and most are extremely addictive and costly.

Personally I smoke pot for leisure and as a sleep aid.  Should be legal.

Sadly, the government doesn’t have to fight the battle.

This fight will be lost by the legalization lobby in much the same way the gun control fight was lost because of the gun lobby.

If you want to have serious debate, then you don’t let those who are outside of the mainstream lead that debate.  You’ll lose.  Your average Canadian would react better to you, Soggy, or to you, Jesus, than the guy in the video.  But as long as every pro-legalization lobby is hijacked by the guys who come across as Cheech and Chong, then the average Canadian will just write it off as a bunch of stoners. 

Remember the gun control debate?  The government didn’t even have to take part in the debate.  It just let the NRA and its Canadian wannabe-NRAs take the lead in the anti-gun control side, and your average Canadian didn’t get to hear a reasoned and logical debate from an average hunter.  Instead, the average Canadian just saw Charlton Heston raising an AK-47 and yelling “from my cold dead hands!” on a Calgary stage.  Bingo, the fight is lost.

So if you’re serious about winning the debate with reason and logic, then you have to realize that your average Canadian is your target.  You have to reach them and change their perception that the pro-legalization lobby is just a bunch of stoners.

Illegal drugs are bad, and I’m pretty sure you knew that’s what I meant. Nice straw man, though. And as a heads up, I didn’t say insulin was okay, that was someone else. I agree, though. :smiley:

I’m not arguing that weed is a bad drug in and of itself. The danger is that because it’s not legal, and therefore not regulated, you have no idea where it’s coming from. Perfect example is Rupert–the Hospital and RCMP are having big issues with people coming in overdosed on “pot” because it was laced with something harder, often meth. That’s what makes weed dangerous, and that’s why an idiot like the guy in this video is far more dangerous an influence to children than a few beer commercials during a hockey game.

On impairment, yes, there exists no standard test for weed impairment. There IS a test for alcohol impairment. So what? You get pulled over, the cop spells weed but can’t see it anywhere… what’s your argument? “But officer, I’m not impaired by the drugs, I’m just high!” You’re not allowed to get high! The police don’t have to justify the illegality of marijuana to some stoner just because he doesn’t think he’s impaired–the crap is illegal. Should a Nascar driver be allowed to drive 160km an hour anywhere just because he can do it safely? No, it’s against the law.

You’re quite right, MiG. It might be stoners or a bunch of NDPers, Liberals, Democrats or it might be the subject, say UFOs. The tactic is to say that because they are [insert label] they are wingnuts.

I just thought that htmf was peopled with “average” Canadians. Isn’t this my preferred audience? :smile: I don’t believe I can change anyone’s perception. Unless they do it themselves, it’s not worth the effort. That’s why I like to bring in the studies and other verifiable information that has been done already.

All of the criticism here has been aimed at a stereotype, and with a very stereotypical response. But even those responses tell me much.

I think you could change people’s perceptions, as could Jesus.  Neither of you are the stereotype. 

Your average joe makes a quick snap decision about things – that’s why stereotypes exist.  It’s an intellectual short-cut.  First impressions count.  It’s not fair, it’s not logical, sure.

But if your first impression of the debate over Bill C-26 is of a Cheech and Chong-type of stoner, then that’s what most people will walk away with.  Most people don’t care to think about an issue, they let their first impression and their previous knowledge (stereotypes, prejudices) make their minds up for them.

Hence the comparison to the gun lobby – having Charlton Heston and his type take the lead on the issue just fed into the existing stereotype.  Instead of seeing all the logical reasons why the gun law was an unnecessary piece of bad legislation, your average Canadian just saw “gun nuts with machine guns” and made up their minds.

If the first impression of the C-26 debate that your average Joe sees is this guy, then I have to say that the fight is over – you’ve lost.

Seriously, do something about it.  You or Jesus should record your own 5 minute video talking about the issue logically.  Neither of you fit the stereotype, so don’t let the stereotype speak for you.

Sorry, I don’t read minds so I can’t know what you meant unless you write it. Illegality IS the problem. A reasonable plan (Four Pillars - Vancouver) has been put forward. It has been working, EXCEPT for the political interference. The first step in rectifying the drug problem is to eliminate the profit motive. Your children have easier access to pot, cocaine, meth, than alcohol. Drug dealers don’t ask for ID.

I’ve never had marijuana laced with anything, here or anywhere else. (Don’t smoke the black mold).

Maybe you missed where I said that I don’t advocate driving while impaired. Quite the opposite. However the problem of testing which was referred to was the use of blood tests as a test of impairment.

:smiley: I couldn’t do the video thing … I look too much like Greg Williams aka Marijuanaman. But I’m doing what I can.

And, thanks for the input.

Problem is, the guy in the video you posted–he quite clearly DOES advocate smoking pot while driving. He argues it doesn’t impair him at all.

Edit: However, I’m open to the idea that you aren’t the same as he is, obviously.