Affichage des résultats du sondage: Pour ou contre la légalisation du cannabis?

Votants
38. Vous ne pouvez pas participer à ce sondage.
  • Oui, je suis pour.

    29 76,32%
  • Non, je suis contre.

    9 23,68%
Page 3 sur 9 PremièrePremière 12345 ... DernièreDernière
Affichage des résultats 21 à 30 sur 81

Discussion: Légalisation du cannabis

  1. #21
    Date d'inscription
    février 2007
    Localisation
    La Prairie
    Messages
    10 723

    Par défaut

    La légalisation de la marijuana, c'est un peu la même chose. Quoique. Enfin. Si les conservateurs travaillent pour les libertés individuelles, pourquoi sont-ils les premiers à scander que la marijuana ne devrait pas être légalisée? Ce serait pourtant une liberté individuelle de plus. Pourquoi sont-ils les premiers à scander que les homosexuels ne devraient pas avoir le droit de se marier? Ce serait une liberté individuelle de plus. Pourquoi sont-ils les premiers à remettre en cause les libertés de la femme à avoir l'équité salariale? Ce serait un droit de plus. Pourquoi sont-ils les premiers à essayer de mettre de la censure dans le cinéma? Ce serait une liberté de plus. Pourquoi sont-ils les premiers à s'opposer à la légalisation de l'euthanasie? Ce serait une liberté individuelle de plus.
    Parce que ce sont ces mêmes gens qui croyaient que les noirs était inférieurs dans les années 60. Ils étaient pour la ségrégation. Aujourd'hui ils s'en prennent au gai et lesbiennes! Ils sont intolérants (surtout à cause de leurs religion).
    Daddy Likes It Dirty!
    Veni, vidi, vici!
    Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.
    GO HABS GO

  2. #22
    Date d'inscription
    août 2010
    Localisation
    Montréal, Rosemont
    Messages
    556

    Par défaut

    Citation Envoyé par Habsfan Voir le message
    Parce que ce sont ces mêmes gens qui croyaient que les noirs était inférieurs dans les années 60. Ils étaient pour la ségrégation. Aujourd'hui ils s'en prennent au gai et lesbiennes! Ils sont intolérants (surtout à cause de leurs religion).
    C'est vrai que ce sont les mêmes gens qui pensaient (et certains le pensent toujours) que les noirs étaient inférieurs. De me lancer dans certaines conclusions telles que "Les Conservateurs sont des individualistes intolérants" ne serait pas approprié, parce que ce serait trop hâtif. Mais ce n'est pas l'envie de le faire qui manque.

  3. #23
    Date d'inscription
    mai 2007
    Localisation
    Montréal
    Messages
    5 956

    Par défaut

    I don't want this thread to turn into a right vs. left pissing match, but Aurélien does have a valid point: some people on the right are often fierce advocates of personal liberty and freedom, yet they're the same people that deny such liberties as a woman's right to choose or to consume marijuana.

    In my opinion, the strongest case for banning Marijuana would be preventing a burden on the health care system.
    People consume the drug ==> their health deteriorates ==> they require more health care ==> this places a strain on our universal health care system increasing costs

    However, considering the physical side-effects of weed, you'd have to smoke a lot of it regularly to incur lung damage. The effects on the brain, while serious, don't require hospital treatment in the typical sense. Weed will lower your IQ and slow your mental processing speed over a span many years of usage... but that's not something that will take you to the E.R. either.

    Legalize it, tax it, regulate it, make it fairly expensive and hidden from view like cigarettes are. I think it would be interesting if California succeeds in legalizing it. It would become a giant experiment. If it fails miserably, perhaps we ought to reconsider our positions... but if it succeeds, it might pave the way for legalization everywhere.

  4. #24
    Date d'inscription
    août 2010
    Localisation
    Montréal, Rosemont
    Messages
    556

    Par défaut

    In my opinion, the strongest case for banning Marijuana would be preventing a burden on the health care system.
    People consume the drug ==> their health deteriorates ==> they require more health care ==> this places a strain on our universal health care system increasing costs
    Oui, mais je ne pense pas que la légalisation de la marijuana n'entraîne vraiment une hausse du pourcentage de la population qui en consomme. C'est tellement facile de s'en procurer aujourd'hui... même pour quelqu'un, comme moi, qui n'y a jamais vraiment touché, je peux facilement me procurer de la marijuana rapidement. Tout à l'heure, il y avait une conversation devant moi, de deux personnes que je connais. "Mes gars sont à sec, ils se cherchent une bonne livre de pot", "Ah ben t'as juste à leur dire de passer à soir pis je vais leur vendre". Ça se fait très ouvertement, sans complexe.

    Moi je me dis que si nous légalisions la marijuana, il n'y aura pas nécessairement beaucoup plus de fumeurs, et la marijuana vendue légalement, produite légalement et de façon vérifiée sera nécessairement de meilleure qualité que la marijuana que les gens consomment aujourd'hui dont on ne sait rien de la qualité. C'est un peu comme les cigarettes de contrebande et la cigarette normale, quoi ...

    If it fails miserably, perhaps we ought to reconsider our positions... but if it succeeds, it might pave the way for legalization everywhere.
    La beauté de la chose, c'est que si nous voyons que ça échoue, nous pourrons abolir la légalisation... enfin, je pense. Je n'ai pas fait d'études en sciences politiques, mais bon, je suis pas mal certain qu'une telle chose se fait.

  5. #25
    Date d'inscription
    avril 2010
    Localisation
    514!
    Messages
    1 925

    Par défaut

    Citation Envoyé par Cataclaw Voir le message
    I don't want this thread to turn into a right vs. left pissing match, but Aurélien does have a valid point: some people on the right are often fierce advocates of personal liberty and freedom, yet they're the same people that deny such liberties as a woman's right to choose or to consume marijuana.
    I love that "right to choose", LOL, I mean she can choose to spread the legs or keep them closed but after that, come onnn Or "pro-life" and "pro-choice", how can someone be against life? How can someone be against choice? Friggin PC euphemisms...
    So live this day that you can look every damn man straight in the eye and tell him to go to hell.

  6. #26
    Date d'inscription
    août 2010
    Localisation
    Montréal, Rosemont
    Messages
    556

    Par défaut

    J'ai rarement vu un foetus faire un choix. Désolé.

  7. #27
    Date d'inscription
    mai 2007
    Localisation
    Montréal
    Messages
    5 956

    Par défaut

    It is a right to choose, is it not? It is the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Some people would rather deny that right and force a woman to have a child, even in cases of incestuous rape.

    So what if someone gets raped by their father? And what if contraception is used by both partners but fails (as it can, because no non-surgical contraceptive is 100% effective) If a woman becomes impregnated against her will because of the "bad luck" of failed contraception (just as a woman getting raped in an alleyway due to the "bad luck" of running into a rapist) the woman has to accept her misfortune? What if the woman is poor, homeless, and lacking in the means of raising a child. Should she force a child to enter the world under such harsh conditions? There are multiple factors at play. As such, a woman ought to have the right to decide what to do. It is not the right of religious group A or political group B to decide in lieu of the woman (or couple).

    Anyway, let's keep this thread about marijuana and not abortion. We can open up a new thread for that if you all want!
    Dernière modification par Cataclaw ; 24/10/2010 à 17h36.

  8. #28
    Date d'inscription
    août 2010
    Localisation
    Montréal, Rosemont
    Messages
    556

    Par défaut

    On peut facilement en faire une analogie avec la légalisation de la marijuana.

    Légalisons là, vendons là, taxons là, faisons de l'argent avec, puis on verra si c'est positif ou négatif.

  9. #29
    Date d'inscription
    avril 2010
    Localisation
    514!
    Messages
    1 925

    Par défaut

    Pot ballot's surprising backers

    Gripping his Bic lighter in one hand and a blue bubbler pipe in another, David Goldman leans forward on his living room couch and begins to medicate. The pipe burbles as he takes a long drag of the premium marijuana doctors have recommended for his chronic pain and headaches. He waits a moment to exhale, savours the taste, then releases a long plume of smoke into the air.

    "That," he says, "feels wonderful."

    It's a feeling Mr. Goldman, 59, hopes all adult Californians will be able to share -- without fear of arrest or jail time--before much longer.

    Fourteen years after California became the first jurisdiction in North America to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes, the state is weighing a history-making ballot measure to legalize the drug for recreational purposes.

    Proposition 19, which Californians will approve or reject on Nov. 2, would allow anyone 21 years or older to possess up to one ounce and grow up to 2.25 square metres of marijuana. It gives local governments the authority to tax and regulate the drug's cultivation and retail sale in cannabis cafes or other outlets.

    The proposition has once again put left-leaning California -- which only two years ago went through a wrenching debate over gay marriage--on the front lines of America's culture wars.

    Public Safety First, the group leading the No campaign on Proposition 19, has raised the spectre of a pot garden in every California backyard and workplaces rife with stoned employees. The Obama administration is also raising its hackles.

    In a move aimed at giving California voters pause before voting in favour of legalization, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder recently announced the federal government would continue to "vigourously enforce" federal drug laws prohibiting marijuana no matter what California's electorate decides.

    "Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes," said Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who also promised continued enforcement. The warnings came as momentum for legalization in California seemed to be building.

    Despite opposition from almost every major political figure in the state, a Public Policy Institute of California poll in September found 52% of voters backed Proposition 19.

    In the wake of Mr. Holder's announcement, a PPIC survey released this week found support had fallen sharply, to 44%.

    "There is the potential of some confusion that gets created about whether California does, in fact, have the right to pass Prop 19, which it does," says Stephen Gutwillig, the California state director for the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy group supporting the Yes on 19 campaign.

    "There may be people who now have questions about whether the federal government may just simply invalidate the election."

    For supporters of Proposition 19, legalization of marijuana is an idea whose time has come.

    Even as lawmakers and editorialists fight the proposal, the Yes on 19 campaign has built a diverse and somewhat surprising coalition of backers -- including the state's largest labour union, an array of former police chiefs and civil right groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

    "I think passage of Prop 19 will be a tipping point," said Mr. Goldman, a patients' rights activist who believes the majority of Californians no longer accept the sky-is-falling predictions of the anti-marijuana movement. In the No campaign's arguments, Mr. Goldman hears echoes of the debate in 1996 over medical marijuana.

    "They thought the world would come to an end--kids would be helplessly seduced into marijuana; the driving fatality rate would skyrocket, and everyone would be laying out getting stoned all the time," he said. "And lo and behold, that just hasn't happened." Many of the pro-legalization arguments are familiar: that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco and that precious law enforcement dollars are being wasted on enforcing minor violations. The most oft-cited statistic? In 2008, there were 61,000 arrests for misdemeanour marijuana possession in California, while 60,000 violent crimes went unsolved.

    "To spend one single dollar locking somebody up for cannabis just seems creepy to me," said Julia Negron, a

    retired addiction specialist who has joined a group of California mothers supporting the Yes on 19 campaign.

    "It's insane -- why would we ever do that? That dollar should go to education. That dollar should go to treatment. That dollar should go anywhere but to the prison system."

    On that point, outgoing California Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger seems to agree. Earlier this month, Mr. Schwarzenegger signed legislation making possession of an ounce of marijuana an infraction rather than a misdemeanour -- putting a violation on par with receiving a parking ticket.

    For all the focus on traditional arguments for and against legalization of marijuana, passage of Proposition 19 may rest on the Yes campaign's ability to persuade voters it is the fiscally responsible thing for California to do. With the state desperate for new sources of revenue to tackle a $19-billion annual deficit, legalization supporters contend taxation and regulation of marijuana would provide a much-needed infusion of cash. Marijuana production is estimated to generate $14-billion a year in the state, and pro-legalization campaigners contend the state could collect up to $1.4-billion in taxes by regulating its production.

    Others envision California becoming a destination for marijuana tourists, with the Bay Area and northern Humboldt County -- where most of the state's crop is grown -- as the natural hubs. In July, Oakland approved the licensing of four marijuana factories to sell pot wholesale to medical marijuana dispensaries.

    A local pot entrepreneur, Richard Lee, has opened Oaksterdam University, which trains students in cultivating and selling marijuana.

    "I think the Bay Area is going to develop into a mecca along the lines of Amsterdam," said Chris Conrad, a veteran of California's marijuana battles and a member of the Yes on 19 steering committee. "I think Oakland is more aggressively embracing it because it has more financial problems. San Francisco can afford to act more shy about it. But when it comes right down to it, people are going to start opening up little shops."

    Mr. Gutwillig believes existing dispensaries, which supply marijuana legally to patients, could provide the foundation for an emergent retail industry. However, U.S. midterm elections are usually "not the most hospitable climate" to test support for socially liberal causes, Mr. Gutwillig said, because older, more conservative voters are more likely to show up to the ballot box.


    Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/wor...#ixzz13JgSyV9m
    I kind of like this ability to add "proposition" votes as in CA, I think BC has a similar thing, if you get a petition going, you can get a referendum tagged onto the ballots in an election. In QC we'd probably end up with sovereignty all the time but maybe we could get better things passed (like the "no new taxes" law that has screwed up CA so much in recent years...)
    Dernière modification par Cyrus ; 24/10/2010 à 18h10.
    So live this day that you can look every damn man straight in the eye and tell him to go to hell.

  10. #30
    Date d'inscription
    janvier 2007
    Localisation
    Rive-Sud
    Messages
    4 406

    Par défaut

    Citation Envoyé par Cyrus Voir le message
    You're forgetting that in every case, someone who cannot be sold something, can and will still buy it. The free market is unkillable and unstoppable... look at the current drug situation for example.
    Yeah, but legalizing it also makes it much more accessible. Pushers (and unscrupulous adults) can easily buy from dépanneurs and sell it to kids at inflated prices.

Règles de messages

  • Vous ne pouvez pas créer de nouvelles discussions
  • Vous ne pouvez pas envoyer des réponses
  • Vous ne pouvez pas envoyer des pièces jointes
  • Vous ne pouvez pas modifier vos messages
  •