Single joint leads to trafficking charge for high school student

[Guest Low Roller]

lowroller you are being a dumbass.

That's funny, because I think you're all being jaded stoners.

[StoneMtn]

What is it that I wrote that makes you think I'm "jaded" or a "stoner"?

In my view, I'm being logical, but I'm open to your argument to the contrary.

[Guest Low Roller]

Actually you're fine StoneMtn, once again apologies for the generalization. I can have a normal debate with you which won't devolve into feces flinging. But there is an element on this board that feel the need to vehemetly defend their lifestyle, and are closed to debate on the topic.

[Asparagus]

lowroller you are being a dumbass.

That's funny' date=' because I think you're all being jaded stoners.[/quote']

Thanks, buddy.

[Gr8FuL]

Who's gettin Stoned?? huh? wha? LITE UP

[Guest Low Roller]

I can't prove anything. I have no sources for anything. And neither does anyone else for that matter regardless of what side of the debate you're on.

So if I read the vibe correctly in this thread, everyone is fine with pot being readily available to minors?

Why hasn't anybody answered my question yet?

And Aspragus, I did not name names. Don't assume.

[mattm]

Although I worded it that way, I really should avoid sweeping generalizations. There are of course exceptions to everything.

But then for every kid that smokes up yet becomes a lawyer, there is certainly a kid that smokes up and goes the opposite way. I just don't want to play the odds when it comes time to raise my kids, that's why I suport schools being drug-free evironments.

I agree with a drug free environment but the reality is that this has happened many times in the past, folks being made an example of, and, not sure if I'm right here, I think the drug trade is the most profitable it's ever been. Kids won't learn from a peer getting arrested. Correction, they will learn, but it will be how to hide it better. I just wish there was more education out there rather than punishment. I know that I've never heard of a drug/alcohol free school and something tells me that unless I move to Malaysia or something on those lines, I probably won't find one.

I only mentioned the poll because my analysis and design class is dealing with that sort of situation right now. We're looking at the 80's/90's trend of getting things to market and making money rather than actually seeing what's needed to make a good, quality, product and more importantly, eliminating future costs. Many companies are finding now that had they just spent a bit of money in the past to get everything straight, they'd be making tonnes more (or in many cases, not going bankrupt). I see this as that type of situation. If Canadians don't care, we are wasting much, much, much more money than the cost of a poll. Who knows, maybe it doesn't apply. I know computers not business.

[Tissue Man]

no i dont think minors should smoke drugs but the way you are going on is a bit much.

[Asparagus]

I can't prove anything. I have no sources for anything. And neither does anyone else for that matter regardless of what side of the debate you're on.

So if I read the vibe correctly in this thread' date=' everyone is fine with pot being readily available to minors?

[/quote']

Why hasn't anybody answered my question yet?

And Aspragus, I did not name names. Don't assume.

I'm actually not assuming anything, I know perfectly well that you did not name names. You should read what you wrote, and what I quoted.

[StoneMtn]

Why hasn't anybody answered my question yet?

Sorry, I suppose that was rude of me. I'll answer.

I think that marijuana should be treated the same way we treat cigarettes or alcohol. They should be controlled, and legally made available to people who reach an age at which they can be deemed responsible for their own decisions. The debate, I think, is really over what age that should be.

[bouche]

you can insert whatever you want in that sentence and it works..

But then for every kid that drinks pepsi yet becomes a lawyer, there is certainly a kid that drinks pepsi and goes the opposite way.

lowroller you are being a dumbass.

Where'd tissueman come from? Lowroller, you should feel honoured that tissueman came out of no where just to call you a dumbass ! WOOT!

[Guest Low Roller]

Proper education is the correct answer, and I support that fully. I would like to see how the Conservatives approach this issue, because the Libs had something like 11 years to do something, and frankly nothing got solved because they usually shied away from taking a stand on anything.

(Hux's reply in 5... 4... 3......)

[Tissue Man]

Where'd tissueman come from? Lowroller, you should feel honoured that tissueman came out of no where just to call you a dumbass ! WOOT!

im around rich stadium from time to time.

[Tissue Man]

Where'd tissueman come from? Lowroller, you should feel honoured that tissueman came out of no where just to call you a dumbass ! WOOT!

drop by rich stadium bouche.

oops didnt think either of these worked.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Guest

[Hux]

I would like to see how the Conservatives approach this issue, because the Libs had something like 11 years to do something, and frankly nothing got solved because they usually shied away from taking a stand on anything.

How about the fact that if the Conservatives had been in power instead of the Liberals for the past "11 years" friends of ours would be sitting in jail as we speak?

I think that speaks most to the policy differences between the two parties on this issue.

Oh, and pot doesn't molest kids - Catholic priests do.

[Guest Low Roller]

I'm actually not assuming anything, I know perfectly well that you did not name names. You should read what you wrote, and what I quoted.

You actually asked a really fair question early on in the thread, and then disappeared for a while, so if you feel like you've been lumped into my sweeping generalization, then you can relax because that's not the case.

[peipunk]

How about the fact that if the Conservatives had been in power instead of the Liberals for the past "11 years" friends of ours would be sitting in jail as we speak?

Is that really a fact? Just curious.

[Hux]

Yes.

[Guest Low Roller]

Source?

[Guest Low Roller]

How about the fact that if the Conservatives had been in power instead of the Liberals for the past "11 years" friends of ours would be sitting in jail as we speak?

That would suck. Granted.

[Hux]

Conditional sentencing became part of the Canadian justice system with the passage of Bill C-41 in 1995.

CBC "Reality Check"

End conditional sentences (“house arrestâ€) for serious crimes, including designated violent and sexual offences, weapons offences, major drug offences, crimes committed against children, and impaired driving causing death or serious injury.

2006 Conservative election platform (see pg. 22)

[Gr8FuL]

Oh, and pot doesn't molest kids - Catholic priests do.

Ewwwwwww, catholic priests

[Guest Low Roller]

Fine, the Conservatives made it part of their election platform, doesn't mean it's a done deal. Just look at the Liberal Red Book and what a joke that was.

[YearsAlongTheSea]

....welcome to Stephen Harper's Canada.

Welcome to a more American Canadia

[Hux]

Fine, the Conservatives made it part of their election platform, doesn't mean it's a done deal.

That wasn't the point, it was if a Conservative Gov't was hypothetically in power for the last "11 years" (as the Libs were) they would have ended conditional sentences for drug offences, there's a certain measure of assumption going on by everybody here, but I gave you the "source" of my info.