The Shotgun Blog

« Harper on Mandatory Minimums | Main | Free Read »

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Harper on Marijuana

Lots of to do was made about there being a marijuana question on the list of questions Stephen Harper would answer in his “YouTube interview.” Personally I don’t find that shocking at all, and I am a little bit amused by the moderator’s apologetic tone. Really this is an issue that affects more Canadians than the seal hunt. So it is not surprising that Canadians care about it.

Here is the question:

A majority of Canadians, when polled, say they believe marijuana should be legal for adults, just like alcohol. Why don’t you end the war on drugs and focus on violent criminals?

Here is the 600 word answer with my comments placed in brackets (I also added paragraphs to improve readability):

Well, it’s a good question. I’m not sure I’ve seen this particular poll. There are different polls on this subject that show different things (but they consistently show high support of legalization), but you know, I have to say young children, I guess they’re now…Ben and Rachel are now getting pretty close to 14 and 11, but maybe they’re not that young, but they are at the age where, you know, they will increasingly come into contact with drug use (so wouldn’t it be nice if marijuana stores would refuse to sell it to them because they fear losing their license?), and I guess as a parent, you know, this is the last thing I want to see for my kids or anyone else’s children (how about adults, what gives you the right to make the choice for them?).

You know, I understand that people defend the use of drugs, but that said, I don’t think…I think I’ve been very fortunate to live a drug-free life (good for you but who really cares?), and I don’t meet many people who’ve led a drug-free life who regret it. Met a lot of people who haven’t, who’ve regretted it (I’ve met a lot of people who have and don’t. This is all really irrelevant). So this is something that we want to encourage obviously for our children, for everybody’s children (You can encourage children not to take drugs and still have it legal. Such as the way that many families encourage their children not to smoke cigarettes).

Now, I also want people to understand what we’re really talking about here when we’re talking about the drug trade. You know, when people say focus on violent crime instead of drugs, and yeah, you know, there’s lots of crimes a lot worse than, you know, casual use of marijuana. But when people are buying from the drug trade, they are not buying from their neighbour (depends on your neighbourhood really). They are buying from international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence and intimidation and social disaster and catastrophe all across the world (Kind of reminds me of alcohol prohibition, how did that turn out when it was ended?). All across the world. You know, and I just wish people would understand that, and not just on drugs. Even when people buy, you know, an illegal carton of cigarettes and they avoid tax, that they really understand the kind of criminal networks that they are supporting, and the damage they do (so by legalizing you take it out of the hands of violent criminals).

Now, you know, I know some people say if you just legalized it, you know, you’d get the money and all would be well (huh?). But I think that rests on the assumption that somehow drugs are bad because they’re illegal. The reason drugs…it’s not that. The reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad (so is cheating on your wife, should we make that illegal too?). And even if these things were legalized, I can predict with a lot of confidence that these would never be respectable businesses run by respectable people (Yes because once booze was made legal no respectable business would touch it. There are absolutely no bases to make this claim). Because the very nature of the dependency they create (like booze), the damage they create (like booze), the social upheaval and catastrophe they create (like booze), particularly in third world countries (huh?)…I mean, you look now, you look at Latin America, some of the countries to the south of us, and the damage the drug trade is doing (wait did we just change topics here? I thought that we were talking about marijuana. Since when does Canada import marijuana from Latin America?), not just to people’s lives as drug users. Look at the violence it’s creating in neighbourhoods (just like booze when it was illegal. Are you starting to see a pattern here?), the destruction of social systems (like booze), of families (like booze), of governmental institutions (Huh?), the corruption of police forces (does he mean criminals corrupt the police? Sort of like how the mafia corrupted the police during alcohol prohibition?).

I mean, these are terrible, terrible organizations (I agree, see above for solution), and while I know people, you know, have different views, I must admit myself sometimes I’m frustrated by how little impact governments have been able to have on the drug trade internationally (you mean government is powerless, wow I’m shocked). But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that if we somehow stopped trying to deal with it, it would suddenly turn into a nice, wholesome industry (the way that booze did). It will never be that (the way that booze isn’t?). And I think we all need to understand that, and we all need to make sure our kids understand, not just that our kids…hopefully not just understand the damage drugs can do to them (like booze), but they understand as well the wider social disaster they are contributing to if they, through use of their money, fund organizations that produce and deliver elicit narcotics (which would stop happening if it was made legal).

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on March 17, 2010 | Permalink

Comments

He's less coherent than Shane!

If this is the best the prohibitionist can do things look good.

Posted by: Publius | 2010-03-17 5:44:03 AM

Stephen Harper insists that marijuana is illegal because it is bad. But a quick look at Canadian history finds that marijuana was criminalized in Canada in 1923 based on racist lies, superstition, and junk science.

Stephen Harper says that marijuana is bad, but that ignores the fact that pot has dozens of proven medical applications, and the fact that thousands of licensed medical users like my wife and I use several grams every single day, and our health as only improved.

Stephen Harper says that no respectable person would sell marijuana, but that ignores the fact that over a dozen Compassion Clubs across the country sell several pounds of marijuana to thousands of sick people every year.

Stephen Harper says he has had a "drug-free life", but there are numerous pictures of him drinking beer, wine, and coffee.

Stephen Harper is either shockingly misinformed, or a congenital liar. I suspect the latter.

Russell Barth
Federally Licensed Medical Marijuana User
Drug Reform Analyst and Consultant
Educators for Sensible Drug Policy

Posted by: Russell Barth | 2010-03-17 6:15:27 AM

In the first place, Hugh, if you're going to insert your own comments into someone else's, you should use square brackets [ and ], not parantheses ( and ). Which brings me to my next point: If you're got an argument to make, make it. Sound bites don't cut it. Especially when they're the same sound bites you've bitten out before, without any change whatsoever.

Second, Publius, given the quality of the arguments the dopeheads put out on this blog, I wouldn't be too hard on Harper. Spoken dialogue always sounds less coherent than writing, unless you're Ian McKellen. Feel free to make your own video and post it so you can show us how it's done, if you like.

And thirdly, Russell, don't make me come over there. This conspiracy theory horseshit was a creaky old line at Woodstock. I have repeatedly asked for--and failed to receive--proof that the WORLDWIDE ban on cannabis was the result of a North American conspiracy. Cannabis and illicit narcotics are also illegal in Russia; did the Americans persuade them to do that?

By the way, marijuana is currently NOT approved by any regulatory or medical body to treat anything in either Canada or the United States. Physicians are not supposed to prescribe anything that hasn't been approved, as it leaves them open to legal and civil liabilities and also discipline by the College of Physicians and their resident hospital, if applicable. How our hippie judges managed to ignore this basic legal fact when ruling on the matter of "medical" pot is something else no one has ever been able to answer.

And let's not gild the lily, Russell; it's a safe bet you and your wife were smoking pot long before they got "medical" permission to do so. To judge from the quality of their decisions, it looks like our judges aren't far behind.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 6:34:55 AM

stephen harper is ignorant for saying drugs are illigal because thye are bad.
so are cigarettes and alcohol and fast foods

Posted by: anshuman | 2010-03-17 6:53:39 AM

See?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 7:10:48 AM

He gave this trivial subject all the seriousness it deserved: none at all. Bravo, yet again, to Mr. Harper.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-17 7:31:52 AM

I agree with Shane. If marijuana is legalized, it will vastly increase drug abuse and addiction and contribute to poor educational outcomes and lower productivity, and other social problems, as Harper says. Some people say marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but marijuana users often use it in conjunction with alcohol. A woman who was high and drunk was just sentenced for killing three kids by driving them into a lake. A man who was high and drunk had hallucinations and put his 5 week old baby in the oven. He blamed the marijuana. Recently a man with a marijuana addiction and psychosis shot at two guards at the Pentagon. We already have enough problems with legal alcohol and cigarettes, Marijuana causes all kinds of behavior problems among chronic users. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful period

Posted by: C Brown | 2010-03-17 7:35:36 AM

Oh give it a rest you troll. Why should "dopeheads" as you put it do your research for you?

It seems to me if you had asked time and time again for evidence of the dangers of cannabis or lack there of and not received it, than the only logical thing to do would be to.... DO IT YOURSELF.

But your not going to.

I or any other educated pro-cannabis could beat you over the head with facts, studies and simple logic but it wouldn't change a damn thing would it? No. Because you've come to a conclusion that suits you and your ideals.

Why not come to these forums to have an intelligent informed discussion. Rather than attempt to belittle people who's opinions differ from yours.

Posted by: Chillis | 2010-03-17 7:46:24 AM

Steve,

I answered your questions from Monday. I also included some reading material ;)

Posted by: Charles | 2010-03-17 7:50:36 AM

Cut the shit, Chillis. You're the one calling for change, not I; the burden of proof therefore lies with you. Though I admit your chronic laziness and insistence that everyone else do everything for you fits in neatly with pot subculture. You guys claim conspiracy; prove it. It's not up to me to disprove it.

As for my ideals, the difference between yours and mine is that I have some. Isn't your mother calling you?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 7:54:33 AM

Very eloquent Shane, and I think you are right about "the judges". They and the rest of the Canadian, even American public are beginning to realize that marijuana is not so evil after all. So maybe it wasn't an organized political smear, but all that reefer madness was totally slanderous none the less.

It's obvious that you can see the inevitable future. It's time for change. So don't be a dinosaur. People are tired of hearing all this fear mongering.

Posted by: PizzaNova | 2010-03-17 8:00:16 AM

HA! Two posts and I can already tell you are or were a cop.

"Cut the shit" why don't you just call me a "maggot" while your at it tough guy?

Shane...if I actually take ten maybe twenty minutes out of my life to educate you will it make a difference? Are you even capable of approaching this subject objectively?

I'll go get you those links.. But i doubt you'll have time to get through them all. After all you've got what 30-40 blogs to troll today?

Better get a move on...you don't want to miss the LCBO

Posted by: Chillis | 2010-03-17 8:05:39 AM

Tsk, tsk tsk. More junk science. Ask the "Climate Change" people how well using 'science' works in backing a cause. Fail.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-17 8:08:13 AM

i love that term..."junk science" it's right up there with "chattering classes" and women: the left wing fringe group"

Posted by: Chillis | 2010-03-17 8:19:18 AM

And celebrating marijuana as a universal panacea, useful for ills from nerves to cancer, and as the most indispensable industrial material since the discovery of iron, is an improvement how? The only reason marijuana is currently such a political hot potato is that these are the baby boomers' peak years of influence in the political system, and they were the ones who first smoked it in large numbers. Many, in fact, still smoke it; the average age of drug users is going up, not down.

Also, there is the fact that Americans have harsh drug laws, and many of our Central-Canadian-educated elite would rather be caught clubbing seals in a wildlife preserve than do something that the Americans are doing. Lacking an identity of their own, they have decided to manufacture one as the product-by-protest of the ugly American, or rather, the caricature they have painted of the ugly American.

It's obvious that you can see the inevitable future. It's time for change. So don't be a dinosaur. People are tired of hearing all this fear mongering.

It's never time for change, save that change be necessary. Change for the sake of change is an empty, stupid, and even destructive exercise in iconoclasm and narcissism. This is a phrase beloved of those who want change but can't justify it by more concrete means. So they appeal to unthinking emotionalism. It's the same trick advertisers use to sell you a new pair of jeans when you already have half a dozen.

You're also apparently under the delusion that change, once made, stays changed. I daresay that your offspring will be as contemptuous of your own values as you were of your parents'. And there's not a thing you can do to prevent it, because they can easily turn around and ask, "What about you?"

Oh, yes, one more thing. The argument is often made that pot is no more damaging than alcohol. So the logic here, then, is that if we are already tolerating so much damage, there is no harm in doubling it? I knew marijuana impeded cogitation, Pizza. There was no need to prove it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 8:24:33 AM

Charles, thanks. On the 94% thread? I guess I better register, as the thread is no longer on the main page. How did you know I would read this post and comments ? :)

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-03-17 8:27:33 AM

HA! Two posts and I can already tell you are or were a cop.

HA HA! You're an idiot. I was once a soldier, but never a cop. You know, Chillis, delusions of persecution are a sign of psychosis? And that marijuana is known to kick-start psychosis in vulnerable individuals?

"Cut the shit" why don't you just call me a "maggot" while your at it tough guy?

This from the petulant little douchebag who called me a troll. What's the matter, twig boy? You can dish it out, but not take it? You gonna sic your big bruddah on me next?

Shane...if I actually take ten maybe twenty minutes out of my life to educate you will it make a difference? Are you even capable of approaching this subject objectively?

You have nothing to teach me, Chillis; I have explored this subject at length, and debunked better debaters that you who actually respected their ideas enough to put them to the test. Your laziness, your indolence, and your petulance are a discredit to the movement you claim to honour.

I'll go get you those links.. But i doubt you'll have time to get through them all. After all you've got what 30-40 blogs to troll today?

Rules:

1. Web sites' URLs may not contain a slogan, a political statement, an attitude, a kvetch, or the word "blog";

2. Web site must be reasonably unbiased (hint: see point 1.);

3. Pros and cons must be equitably and thoroughly discussed.

Better get a move on...you don't want to miss the LCBO

Consider your surrender accepted, Chillis.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 8:30:18 AM

i love that term..."junk science" it's right up there with "chattering classes" and women: the left wing fringe group"

Yes, it turns out that climate change isn't quite the end of the world, and that most of the conspiracies were actually among the climate-change "consensus," rather than among the "deniers" (who in a previous century would have been termed "heretics"). Remember the "hockey stick" graph? And then there was that unfortunate e-mail business...

So far, Chillis, you've contributed nothing but attitude. Frankly I don't expect that to change. You're too damned lazy to do anything but bitch.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 8:33:07 AM

more personal attacks and name calling... whats the matter is the wife at work, no one to yell at?

Posted by: Chillis | 2010-03-17 8:44:50 AM

Steve,

On the 94% thread. It's still there (somewhere near the bottom). I didn't want to copy it on this thread as it has nothing to do with the discussion. Lemme know if you have trouble finding it.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-03-17 8:45:35 AM

Shane: what do you mean by "unfortunate" about the East Anglia climate research unit? For others, it was a gift from above. It proved beyond a doubt that scientists manipulated their work to suit a specific political agenda. Factual errors are one thing, but outright fraud like this is far, far more serious. So, in the end, it was fortunate for all - the majority of the free world escapes what could have been economic disaster under wealth transfer schemes, while the scientists are forced to go back to the start. I think we dodged a bullet.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-17 8:46:24 AM

Oops, I think I might have ruffled your feathers. You're not quite so eloquent anymore, and your arguements are getting less rational. What are you Smoking?

That whole "never time for change" line just does not cut it for the millions of people who are fined and imprisoned every year for a relatively harmless herb.

And if you think marijuana is as bad as alcohol, then you really are missinformed. It doesn't even come close. In fact if you want something to compare marijuana to in terms of health risks, you'd be better to choose caffeine.

You're also a little behind on American drug law. Currently I think more than a dozen states have medical marijuana laws on the books and 10 or more have de-criminalized possesion to some extent. Lets get on with it!!

Posted by: PizzaNova | 2010-03-17 8:52:02 AM

You really are a riot Shane. I hope you realize that you've just admitted that you have no idea how to parse through information in order to keep the good and dispose of the bad. You can get some great information from blogs. Furthermore, a biased author isn't necessarily wrong, just biased (as we all are). As an analyst, you definitely get a failing grade. I'll repeat this for you: who the author is, what their other beliefs are, and their biases have no bearing in an intellectual debate. The only thing that matters is logic and evidence (in that order).

As for your little rules, if you want to argue that an author is biased, a bad title is not enough, you need to show what is wrong with the ideas and evidence presented. Furthermore, stating that it is wrong without explaining why is unacceptable. Those are my rules.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-03-17 9:02:12 AM

uh oh... Not another lazy pot head.

there is no point in trying, Nova. Former Officer Mathews uses draconian drug laws to justify his place in life.
First as a tool of the gov't. Oops I meant Officer of the law. And after being relieved of his position for what is an obvious mental disorder. He now spends his time as a troll looking for those with opposing viewpoints so he can bring himself up by pushing others down.

Feed the trolls if you like. All you'll receive in return are insults and opinion presented as fact.

Posted by: Chillis | 2010-03-17 9:03:06 AM

more personal attacks and name calling... whats the matter is the wife at work, no one to yell at?

BUT: Oh give it a rest you troll.

What is that? That is the stink of hypocrisy!

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 9:09:08 AM

It was unfortunate from the perspective of the supporters of client change, Zeb, which was the point. Unfortunate, embarrassing, perhaps fatal. I am giggling with delight.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 9:10:20 AM

Too Funny.

The Puritanical Prohibitionists 'discount' science and such but espouse belief about some old white guy who lives in the clouds, same old white guy who will come back to earth and raise the Rapture.

Maybe it's the Alcohol and the Oxy's that make it seem more real to the Puritanical Prohibitionists as Rapture Boy Harper croons:

' I get high with a little help from my friends.'

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2010-03-17 9:13:47 AM

Oops, I think I might have ruffled your feathers. You're not quite so eloquent anymore, and your arguements are getting less rational. What are you Smoking?

I think, Pizza, that I will not accept judgements as to eloquence from people who can't spell the word "arguments." On a spell-checking browser, yet.

That whole "never time for change" line just does not cut it for the millions of people who are fined and imprisoned every year for a relatively harmless herb.

Since these people have all contributed to the coffers of organized crime in order to achieve those charges, I do not care what they think. Nor does what they think matter from a debating standpoint. It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters what they can prove. No one forced that weed down their throats.

Let's see: risk of lung cancer (difficult to separate from tobacco risks because most people who smoke dope smoke tobacco); risk of long-term cognitive and memory impairment; one-in-five chance of switching to the hard stuff; 1-in-20 chance of temporary psychotic break; small but measurable chance of schizophrenia or other longer-lasting psychosis; virtual certainty of remaining an emotionally stunted adolescent to the end of your days. Yup, harmless as chewing gum.

You're also a little behind on American drug law. Currently I think more than a dozen states have medical marijuana laws on the books and 10 or more have de-criminalized possesion to some extent.

You "think"? You will let us know at once when you're sure, won't you? As I said, the special unregulated position that marijuana enjoys in the medical community is thanks largely to boomers who can't stand to be without their beloved weed and have demanded a legal end-around if they can show that their health is anything but perfect. Once the FDA, the AMA, and Health Canada sign off on medical pot, it'll become a legitimate, if prescription, medicine. Not until then. Drug approval procedures exist for a reason, and it isn't to line the pockets of Big Pharma. In fact it costs them plenty.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 9:19:29 AM

. This conspiracy theory horseshit was a creaky old line at Woodstock. I have repeatedly asked for--and failed to receive--proof that the WORLDWIDE ban on cannabis was the result of a North American conspiracy

I'm thinking of adding Shane's contortion as an example in this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-03-17 9:20:56 AM

Some really bad information, too, Charles. You know as well as I do that what most bloggers want to do is register their opinions, not debate in facts. There’s a reason serious research requires peer review, independent corroboration, and the test of time before it is considered reasonably unbiased and objective. You don’t get any of that on blogs, or on partisan websites.

Furthermore, a biased author isn't necessarily wrong, just biased (as we all are). As an analyst, you definitely get a failing grade. I'll repeat this for you: who the author is, what their other beliefs are, and their biases have no bearing in an intellectual debate. The only thing that matters is logic and evidence (in that order).

You have your case backwards, my boy. EVIDENCE comes first. Then logic. Any computer programmer knows that logic without data isn’t worth squat. It’s also of only limited use when dealing with human beings, because people often behave irrationally, in which case past experience also becomes important. Your approach is overly formulaic and theoretical. This explains your fondness for systems that no one has ever tried but look good on paper, at least to you.

This is where experience comes in, Charles. Information found on partisan websites is almost always one-sided, incomplete, or taken out of context. Very often it is outright lies. It’s like trying to make a case for gun control using only information provided by the Violence Policy Centre. Experience has taught me not to look for non-partisan information on partisan sites. Logically, there is no reason you couldn’t stroll around Hastings and Main at three in the morning with hundred-dollar bills hanging out of your pocket. But you’d be inviting calamity, all the same.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 9:31:01 AM

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 9:31:53 AM

I'm thinking of adding Shane's contortion as an example in this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

Let us know when it appears. Better yet, let's see how long it takes for someone to flag it, and for the editor to yank it, as having been placed by an obvious crank.

You do realize that without context, no one is going to understand why that sentence constitutes "moving the goalposts"?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 9:34:03 AM

Too funny. The Puritanical Prohibitionists 'discount' science and such but espouse belief about some old white guy who lives in the clouds, same old white guy who will come back to earth and raise the Rapture.

Too funny. The only ones who talk about religion anymore are the ones who aren't religious. I search this thread in vain for the letters G, O, and D, in that order? Similarly absent are J-E-S-U-S, C-H-R-I-S-T, and B-I-B-L-E. But all over these blogs I see the letters E-M-E-R-Y repeated over and over with missionary zeal.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 9:36:59 AM

there is no point in trying, Nova. Former Officer Mathews uses draconian drug laws to justify his place in life.

Ooh, Chillis is a gossip, too! Are you listening, Publius?

First as a tool of the gov't. Oops I meant Officer of the law. And after being relieved of his position for what is an obvious mental disorder. He now spends his time as a troll looking for those with opposing viewpoints so he can bring himself up by pushing others down.

Delusions of persecution again, Chillis? Attracting too much unwelcome attention from the Man recently?

Feed the trolls if you like. All you'll receive in return are insults and opinion presented as fact.

Screeched the hypocrite who was the first to call names. You know, Chillis, the best favour an asshole moron like you can do for your movement is to shut your mouth? You damage the cause more and more each time you open it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 9:39:29 AM

P.S. You really do believe there is no point in trying, hence that fact that you have never tried. From the beginning your posts have reeked of laziness and indolence. Funny, isn't that what pot smokers are noted for? How do you expect to banish the stereotype when you're a picture-perfect image of it?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 9:40:55 AM

Shane, you're inability to detect when someone is being sarcastic is pretty hilarious.

Anyways, your argument was a simple moving the goalpost. The original argument spoke of the reasons why, specifically, marijuana was banned in Canada -- and you in turn demanded he prove that it was the same reason it was banned "WORLDWIDE".

You pretend like you have some grasp of how logic works, but everyone else here who's actually educated in logic sees you just making a fool of yourself.

I've never actually seen you win any argument here by any objective standard.

Early on in our encounters, you seemingly had no background in formal logic at all. And I noticed as I tried to beat logical precepts, like formal and informal fallacies into you, you simply began using them as selective tools -- making their use fallacious -- in order to claim superiority over your debate opponents.

Shane, your entire argument position, when taken in broadly is nothing more than classic tautology. Period. Considering you think and argue tautologically, it's not hard to understand why you always think you're winning arguments. And because you think tautologically, it's probably impossible to convince you of anything.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-03-17 9:46:23 AM

And by "you're" ability I mean't "your".

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-03-17 9:46:51 AM

.. nice work Steve..of all the opinions on the subject of pot in Canada , only his will manifest- and he was careful enough to be part of the vast majority of Canadians like we have been trying to tell you for , who knows how long..

..........do the math - Too bad Wipheads.........

vote Jack Layton next time- unless you already did

Posted by: 419 | 2010-03-17 10:00:32 AM

" you're gonna fry
with a little help
from my friends "

Posted by: 419 | 2010-03-17 10:03:02 AM

"Some really bad information, too, Charles."

Indeed. That's why you have to be able to parse through the information for yourself.

"You have your case backwards, my boy. EVIDENCE comes first. Then logic. Any computer programmer knows that logic without data isn’t worth squat."

Have you ever heard of data mining or spurious correlation? Data means nothing without causation, which requires logic. Have you ever heard of a scientist who goes out looking for data before he has a hypothesis. First you have a logical hypothesis, then you test it with data. Not the other way around.

"This is where experience comes in, Charles. Information found on partisan websites is almost always one-sided, incomplete, or taken out of context. Very often it is outright lies."

Actually Shane, experience is being able to detect the bullshit by investigating the ideas and data provided. Again. You refuse to debate ideas and their content. Oh, and in my experience, those who refuse to debate the content are generally dishonest and just plain full of shit.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-03-17 10:05:52 AM

419: not even Jack can help them.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-17 10:07:22 AM

Bickering, that's all the non-informed can do, and do so with a bit of postulating to bolster self-righteousness. First off: the LeDain Report (1973?) from the Commission proposed decriminalizing the 'weed' - made sense then, still does. Also, anyone who claims to be 'drug-free' is either a liar or totally inexperienced on the subject of the 'weed'. The other snippets I've read in these posts are wholly uninformed and Shane must come from the same shallow well that Harper emerged out of - and since both claim inexperience with that 'devil weed' then neither knows anything of what they speak of.

Posted by: Jean Pierre | 2010-03-17 10:14:25 AM

I thought that people commenting here might find this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-cannabis-laws.png

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2010-03-17 10:26:59 AM

I stand by what I said earlier: Mr. Harper's answer was evasive to say the least. But, knowing his particular genius, that is the perfect way to address this ridiculous non-issue. This isn't a priority for him or anyone but the druggies. Neither Iggy nor Jack nor their minions will touch it. The Greens might but there's little they can do. So, despite the fanatical devotion of some malcontents to their drug culture (not to mention their insane addiction to illicit narcotics), nothing will change. They should be grateful, because he could always tighten laws and throw more of you people in jail or worse - make you get jobs! *Shrieks from the druggies*

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-17 10:27:42 AM

But... Wise & Honourable Zebulon,

I thought Jack Layton & Marc Emery were
you know... Penpals / Lovers / Facebook Friends .....something special... so they could fix Canada and return it to the 60s, where it belongs

They are both Leaders of famous fringe political parties with literally
_dozens_ of supporters... > each

Boy I tell you Zeb, once Marc Emery masters Spanish in the US prison system .. things will be way more " Viva le Revolution" starting _immediately_ in 2015..

.....when he is released from custody

Posted by: 419 | 2010-03-17 10:29:56 AM

Mr. Matthews,

Although I disagree with your point of view, at least you do write well and refrain from personal attacks, which is how we should debate. Attack the issue, not the person.

"Many, in fact, still smoke it; the average age of drug users is going up, not down." - Shane Matthews

These baby boomers are now between the ages of 55 and 65. If the drug was so destructive wouldn't they all be suffering severe health problems by now?

Secondly, you mention that 1 in 5 marijuana users goes on to harder drugs. As someone as educated as yourself, I am sure that you would be the first to point out that correlation does not prove causation. Especially since I am sure that this "1 in 5" number you speak of had probably already tried alcohol before moving on to harder drugs. So, based on your reasoning...alcohol is the true gateway drug.

Here is a study for you to debunk Shane. Darn Harvard left wing scientists!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

American Association for Cancer Research (2007, April 17). Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows.

And finally, we can argue the negative effects of marijuana all day. The real argument should be the effects of prohibition and if our current strategy is the best possible solution to reducing the use and harm of drugs.

Posted by: Maurice Durocher | 2010-03-17 10:30:06 AM

Shane, you're inability to detect when someone is being sarcastic is pretty hilarious.

Maybe that’s because, what with all their genuine moral outrage over the most laughable trifles, it’s difficult to separate a fake from the genuine article.

Anyways, your argument was a simple moving the goalpost. The original argument spoke of the reasons why, specifically, marijuana was banned in Canada -- and you in turn demanded he prove that it was the same reason it was banned "WORLDWIDE".

A government conspiracy just happens to also be the favoured explanation of American potheads as to why their own government restricted marijuana from 1937 onwards—the famed triangle of Aslinger, Hearst, and DuPont, with the gratuitous accusations of racism thrown in for good measure. Marijuana was restricted around the world at about the same time, whereas Prohibition, which dates from the same era, did not extend beyond the U.S. All of this strongly argues against the conspiracy theories. Once again, Charles, you’re being a formula hawk and an empirical imbecile.

You pretend like you have some grasp of how logic works, but everyone else here who's actually educated in logic sees you just making a fool of yourself.

You pretend like you have some grasp of how the world works, but everyone else here who's actually educated in how it works sees you just making a fool of yourself. You’re being intentionally dense, ignoring the obvious by petty red-flagging piddling violations of formal logic rules. To paraphrase you, just because someone’s logic is imperfect (which it usually will be in the case of bias) doesn’t make them wrong. So why do you keep harping on this point, Charles?

I know that you think you're a master of argumentation, and everyone else here are weak at arguing. But you only have that perception because you think winning an argument is a function of endurance, rather than a function of truth. I've never actually seen you win any argument here by any objective standard. Early on in our encounters, you seemingly had no background in formal logic at all. And I noticed as I tried to beat logical precepts, like formal and informal fallacies into you, you simply began using them as selective tools -- making their use fallacious -- in order to claim superiority over your debate opponents.

“Is” weak at arguing, not “are.” And who appointed you referee? Furthermore, what makes you think you have won any argument here? You place your faith in systems no one has ever even tried, and because no disproof therefore exists, claim victory. You’re a living example of the incredible tunnel vision that can result from an unbending devotion to the strictures of doctrinaire logic. Your technique, you tell yourself, is perfect, and it is therefore incumbent upon the rest of the world to make themselves understand the theoretically perfect answers you believe yourself to have. Is everyone else wrong? That’s their problem. But whose system is in practice, and whose isn’t? No wonder you’re so bitter. As they say, it's lonely at the top...or the bottom.

Shane, your entire argument position, when taken in broadly is nothing more than classic tautology. Period. Considering you think and argue tautologically, it's not hard to understand why you always think you're winning arguments. And because you think tautologically, it's probably impossible to convince you of anything.

Prove it. You’ve spent the whole post bashing my logic, saying this is this and that is that, all opinions, all judgement calls. Your opinion and nothing more. Now put up or shut up. And be prepared to have your own fallacies, your own tautologies, your own bias, and not least of all your everlasting hate and bitterness, laid bare in return.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-17 10:32:20 AM

Prohibition is a sickening horror and the ocean of human wreckage it has left in its wake is almost endless.

Based on the unalterable proviso that drug use is essentially an unstoppable and ongoing human behavior which has been with us since the dawn of time, any serious reading on the subject of past attempts at any form of drug prohibition would point most normal thinking people in the direction of sensible regulation. By its very nature prohibition cannot fail but create a vast increase in criminal activity, and rather than preventing society from descending into anarchy, it actually fosters an anarchic business model - the international Drug Trade. Any decisions concerning quality, quantity, distribution and availability are then left in the hands of unregulated, anonymous, ruthless drug dealers, who are interested only in the huge profits involved.

Prohibition ideology is based on lies and the 'War on Drugs' is a de facto 'war on people' (some might even successfully argue that it's a de facto race war). Prohibition has decimated generations and criminalized millions for a behavior which is entwined in human existence, and for what other purpose than to uphold the defunct and corrupt thinking of a minority of misguided, self-righteous Neo-Puritans and degenerate demagogues who wish nothing but unadulterated destruction on the rest of us.

Posted by: malcolm kyle | 2010-03-17 10:37:14 AM

Maurice,

Shane never resorts to personal attacks? I beg to differ! Here's some choice ad hominem quotes from Shane, from this very thread:

"Cut the shit, Chillis. You're the one calling for change, not I; the burden of proof therefore lies with you. Though I admit your chronic laziness and insistence that everyone else do everything for you fits in neatly with pot subculture."

"As for my ideals, the difference between yours and mine is that I have some. Isn't your mother calling you?"

"You're also apparently under the delusion that change, once made, stays changed. I daresay that your offspring will be as contemptuous of your own values as you were of your parents'. And there's not a thing you can do to prevent it, because they can easily turn around and ask, "What about you?""

"So the logic here, then, is that if we are already tolerating so much damage, there is no harm in doubling it? I knew marijuana impeded cogitation"

"This from the petulant little douchebag who called me a troll. What's the matter, twig boy? You can dish it out, but not take it? You gonna sic your big bruddah on me next?"

"Your laziness, your indolence, and your petulance are a discredit to the movement you claim to honour."

"You're too damned lazy to do anything but bitch."

"Since these people have all contributed to the coffers of organized crime in order to achieve those charges, I do not care what they think. "

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-03-17 10:37:46 AM

Nice work Shane'
the Wipeheads and their apologists
are scared shitless today

How do i know they are shitless?
they put the entire contents
of their bowels on line ..

Imagine .. downtown Hiroshima'
Wipeheads looking up at a passing B-52
and a dot getting bigger

Posted by: 419 | 2010-03-17 10:40:12 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Harper on Marijuana

Comments