Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 218 posts

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#201

Post by joesmo »

corin_ wrote: post #178
k-mcgrady wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "UN is meeting one of the next couple of months to hopefully start to get rid of all that idiocy" I think that meeting it yesterday, today, and tomorrow - hence the timing of this announcement.

Not only is it this week, but we already know that the outcome document is not going to see any real change to the current state of prohibition - the only sign of progress was a number of countries saying they want to explore different approaches and Canada saying they'll be doing this anyway.

I'd say that is real progress. Canada going ahead with it despite the treaty is a big "FUCK YOU" to the treaty, the US, and all the horrible shit the treaty stands for, shit the US forced down the throats of the world like everything else.

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#202

Post by corin_ »

joesmo wrote: post #201
corin_ wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only is it this week, but we already know that the outcome document is not going to see any real change to the current state of prohibition - the only sign of progress was a number of countries saying they want to explore different approaches and Canada saying they'll be doing this anyway.

I'd say that is real progress. Canada going ahead with it despite the treaty is a big "FUCK YOU" to the treaty, the US, and all the horrible shit the treaty stands for, shit the US forced down the throats of the world like everything else.

It's not a big fuck you to the US given the US already has plenty of places with legal weed and their logic is "we're not technically breaking the UN treaty because it's the states not the federal government allowing weed". US may be responsible for the treaty but they're not exactly its biggest supporter now.

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#203

Post by hasenj »

ooooo00000 wrote: post #189
hasenj wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are talking in a very defensive tone, like I have said something to deeply offend you. The mess extends to the surrounding areas as well, such as China-town. Also, I've mentioned the signs on shop windows (in areas far away) indicating an unusual crime level. Many streets were, not very clean, to say the least. Which is not hard to understand, given the "broken window" theory.

But it's not clear why you think that homelessness in Vancouver is strongly connected to the availability of marijuana. Any evidence?

It's the only major visible factor I was able to discern during my short visit.

I'd love to see some counter proposals as to why that's the case in Vancouver.

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#204

Post by hasenj »

jimpick wrote: post #195
hasenj wrote: post #148

I'm a little bit worried about this, actually. I've been to Vancouver and it wasn't a very pretty sight. The amount of homelessness and crime is 10 times more what I've seen anywhere else in North America. There's an entire section (several blocks) in the Downtown area that's full of homeless people and the streets smell like urine. Shops even in areas far away from downtown put posters on their windows saying they d…

Gotta reply to this, since I live/work downtown. The Downtown Eastside (DTES) is the oldest part of Vancouver. It's located next to the port, so it's where the rooming houses have historically been located. It's much the same as Pioneer Square in Seattle, the Tenderloin in SF, or Skid Row in L.A. It's also where Chinatown is located, a historically persecuted community. It's actually a great neighbourhood. You'd be s…

Thanks for the thorough response.

> But generally speaking, the social ills of the DTES are associated with addictive IV drug use (heroin) and crack cocaine and not with social drugs like marijuana.

So it's still related to drugs one way or another.

Would you say "safe" drugs like Marijuana would improve the situation?

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#205

Post by vsviridov »

hasenj wrote: post #203
ooooo00000 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not clear why you think that homelessness in Vancouver is strongly connected to the availability of marijuana. Any evidence?

It's the only major visible factor I was able to discern during my short visit. I'd love to see some counter proposals as to why that's the case in Vancouver.

Well, how about closure of a big psych facility and letting people literally on the street? Or the fact that the area is starting to get massively gentrified, and whereas before that population was spread across entire East Hastings, now they have to converge by Pigeon Park, so the numbers seem massive? How about the fact that foreign land investors have caused the property prices in Vancouver to skyrocket over last decade, and for developers social housing doesn't sound like something they'd do.

I heard that Riverview will be reopening, so, hopefully people with mental health issues can get off the streets.

It's a sad state of affairs, but just saying "Because Marijuana" is silly...

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#206

Post by thaumasiotes »

auntienomen wrote: post #183
thaumasiotes wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Does smoking pot make you cool? > No, the contrapositive. The first thing you're ever taught about the contrapositive, generally at the same time the name is taught, is that a statement is exactly equivalent to its contrapositive.

In boolean logic, when the law of the excluded middle holds. The theorem you're trying to use is manifestly inapplicable.

You're confused.

For one thing, the law of the excluded middle holds here just as it holds everywhere else. You've got two options:

- Smoking pot makes you cool.

- Smoking pot does not make you cool.

Those cover all cases.

But, the point I'm making is that you are incorrect to label "being cool helps you access pot" as "the contrapositive" of "smoking pot makes you cool". The concept of a contrapositive does not apply to "smoking pot makes you cool", because it is not a conditional statement.

If you want to cast the idea you're supporting as a conditional statement, you have "if you're not cool, you don't smoke pot". This actually has a contrapositive, "if you smoke pot, you're cool", and it is the same idea.

I don't believe that innovative misuse of specialized technical terms is actually a good idea. When the word you'd really like to use doesn't mean what you want it to mean, suck it up and use some different words.

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#207

Post by kobayashi »

MustardTiger wrote: post #186
grecy wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say is true, though it would be a sad day when the future of what Canadians want Canada to be is limited by the financial pressure of another country. Of course, to prevent this problem, Canada could just hint at slowing down or limiting the 12410000000 barrels of oil it exports to the USA [1] (see, two can play that game, and nobody wins) [1] http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/canadian-oil-e...

>What you say is true, though it would be a sad day when the future of what Canadians want Canada to be is limited by the financial pressure of another country. That day happened like 50 years ago and has been that way ever since. As much as Canadians define themselves by being "not Americans", we're very heavily influenced by the US.

Great username.

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#208

Post by dang »

kungfooman wrote: post #184

When do the European faggot politicans wake up to allow cannabis? Already thinking about migrating to the US.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.

If you don't want it to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll only post civil, substantive comments in the future.

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#209

Post by ant6n »

leesalminen wrote: post #199
ant6n wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a triplex from 1910. My 'ventilation' is opening the front and back balcony door. The outside air often stinks like skunk. It's actually pretty nauseating.

My apologies, I wasn't clear on that. I meant that regulations could be enacted for those cultivating marijuana in their home, requiring proper ventilation and filtration. Nobody wants to smell skunk all the time.

The pot-smokers tend to be neither the very regulation following kind of people, nor the kind of people who have the money for this stuff, nor people who are actually considerate enough of other people. For example, a vaporizer helps with smell, and that's a very cheap solution, but apparently rolling it so much more fun.

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#210

Post by auntienomen »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #206
auntienomen wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In boolean logic, when the law of the excluded middle holds. The theorem you're trying to use is manifestly inapplicable.

You're confused. For one thing, the law of the excluded middle holds here just as it holds everywhere else. You've got two options: - Smoking pot makes you cool. - Smoking pot does not make you cool. Those cover all cases. But, the point I'm making is that you are incorrect to label "being cool helps you access pot" as "the contrapositive" of "smoking pot makes you cool". The concept of a contrapositive does not appl…

The symbols above? They're English sentences, and they're perfectly clear in context. You're making a category error by trying to treat them as logical propositions, and it's leading you to waste your time on pedantry.
Post reply on HN