Should T&T legalized marijuana?

[Agent Jack Bauer]

If the criminal justice system was running close to properly I would say maybe.........but the legislative, judicial and law enforcement arms can't even handle a child tiefing a sweetie to expect them to handle legalizing weed........and society on every level is to screwed up also........wrong priorities overall.........look no further than road fatalities

Laws that
How would you respond to this? The last stat (I saw) indicated that 1985 was the peak year for road fatalities. We had a different society then.

when I mentioned road fatalities it was more to highlight my belief on how alcohol plays a major role in the majority of accidents..........now we started the breathalyzer program some years back which is kind of a joke and very inconsistent AND there are other laws that needs to be enforced with it.......drinking on the streets and last call by a specific time at drinking holes........then look at the enforcement of vehicle and road laws besides a man driving with a dark tint or loud music........dem men does feel they on d fast on furious with they reckless driving........they don't have police enforcement to help deter people from being impaired and driving reckless.........and last on my list is the substandard vehicles they sell people in T&T.........I would put money that those cars we see fold up like foil paper would not pass crash safety standards in the real world...........hope my rant making sense..........alcohol isn't being controlled properly and marijuana will also be abused if not regulated properly.......

If marijuana is legalized the biggest increase you will see is people smoking it in the open. As it stand marijuana is already widely used. Can't see how legalization will send use through the roof.

not use but the neverCcomeC abuse...........it's inevitable just like alcohol and the great job being done to at least try to keep it under control in T&T.

I don't think so as weed is not taboo in T&T. Weed is a "normal scene" for most people in T&T and as such a weed flex will be no scene really.

no it's not a normal scene for most people.......

[asylumseeker]

If the criminal justice system was running close to properly I would say maybe.........but the legislative, judicial and law enforcement arms can't even handle a child tiefing a sweetie to expect them to handle legalizing weed........and society on every level is to screwed up also........wrong priorities overall.........look no further than road fatalities

Laws that
How would you respond to this? The last stat (I saw) indicated that 1985 was the peak year for road fatalities. We had a different society then.

when I mentioned road fatalities it was more to highlight my belief on how alcohol plays a major role in the majority of accidents..........now we started the breathalyzer program some years back which is kind of a joke and very inconsistent AND there are other laws that needs to be enforced with it.......drinking on the streets and last call by a specific time at drinking holes........then look at the enforcement of vehicle and road laws besides a man driving with a dark tint or loud music........dem men does feel they on d fast on furious with they reckless driving........they don't have police enforcement to help deter people from being impaired and driving reckless.........and last on my list is the substandard vehicles they sell people in T&T.........I would put money that those cars we see fold up like foil paper would not pass crash safety standards in the real world...........hope my rant making sense..........alcohol isn't being controlled properly and marijuana will also be abused if not regulated properly.......

If marijuana is legalized the biggest increase you will see is people smoking it in the open. As it stand marijuana is already widely used. Can't see how legalization will send use through the roof.

not use but the neverCcomeC abuse...........it's inevitable just like alcohol and the great job being done to at least try to keep it under control in T&T.

I don't think so as weed is not taboo in T&T. Weed is a "normal scene" for most people in T&T and as such a weed flex will be no scene really.

no it's not a normal scene for most people.......

Strange, because the normal scene is that it's diverting too many resources.   

[Agent Jack Bauer]

If the criminal justice system was running close to properly I would say maybe.........but the legislative, judicial and law enforcement arms can't even handle a child tiefing a sweetie to expect them to handle legalizing weed........and society on every level is to screwed up also........wrong priorities overall.........look no further than road fatalities

Laws that
How would you respond to this? The last stat (I saw) indicated that 1985 was the peak year for road fatalities. We had a different society then.

when I mentioned road fatalities it was more to highlight my belief on how alcohol plays a major role in the majority of accidents..........now we started the breathalyzer program some years back which is kind of a joke and very inconsistent AND there are other laws that needs to be enforced with it.......drinking on the streets and last call by a specific time at drinking holes........then look at the enforcement of vehicle and road laws besides a man driving with a dark tint or loud music........dem men does feel they on d fast on furious with they reckless driving........they don't have police enforcement to help deter people from being impaired and driving reckless.........and last on my list is the substandard vehicles they sell people in T&T.........I would put money that those cars we see fold up like foil paper would not pass crash safety standards in the real world...........hope my rant making sense..........alcohol isn't being controlled properly and marijuana will also be abused if not regulated properly.......

If marijuana is legalized the biggest increase you will see is people smoking it in the open. As it stand marijuana is already widely used. Can't see how legalization will send use through the roof.

not use but the neverCcomeC abuse...........it's inevitable just like alcohol and the great job being done to at least try to keep it under control in T&T.

I don't think so as weed is not taboo in T&T. Weed is a "normal scene" for most people in T&T and as such a weed flex will be no scene really.

no it's not a normal scene for most people.......

Strange, because the normal scene is that it's diverting too many resources.   

and that is the truth  but with freed up resources it go still be salt

[pecan]

Tirerais, from a Bakesian worldview, this exchange is the epitome of politeness. Be happy that he was not polite.   

Just Cool said something about you some months back and I'm starting to realize it's true... actually is a while now I realize it's true.  For a grown ass man, with damn near adult, if not adult children, you love to engage in little gyul behavior.  You forever throwing basket like ah little instigating-ass bitch.  Is like you take over wherer West Coast leave off.  Doh bother responding.

Sorry to disappoint, I am responding

Your point is taken. I should not engage in posting these snipes or taking pot shots at you in this manner.  I realize that I am like a moth drawn to a flame. I find it difficult to resist making tongue-in-cheek, acerbic or sarcastic comments to certain posters. I realize I tend to do this most often with you, JC and TT (when the latter two were active posters – incidentally, you and JC replies are quite similar; TT responded differently).  Rather, I should engage directly or learn to ignore posts in which I am not an active participant.

In the future, I will refrain from these snipes or what you call “little gyul behaviour” which by the way, is no different than what you just posted.

But let me be clear in my opinion and not hide behind “little gyul behaviour”. I find that the persona you adopt on  this forum to be abrasive. Tireais was very generous when he described your response as “impolite” or “bad manners”. I would describe it as “bullying”.  I have challenged you on this before and you have countered with comments such as  “Take that as ah insult if yuh want to... take it as a "personal insult" if it make yuh happy.”

What I find peculiar is that you have no need to adopt this persona. Your arguments are almost always spot on, articulate, thoughtful and logical. Yet you feel the need to throw in disparaging or belittling comments to underscore your point. Maybe in your profession, this is a useful characteristic. But on this forum? I don’t get it.

But that is my opinion and no one is forcing me to read your comments.

[Bakes]

Your point is taken. I should not engage in posting these snipes or taking pot shots at you in this manner.  I realize that I am like a moth drawn to a flame. I find it difficult to resist making tongue-in-cheek, acerbic or sarcastic comments to certain posters. I realize I tend to do this most often with you, JC and TT (when the latter two were active posters – incidentally, you and JC replies are quite similar; TT responded differently).  Rather, I should engage directly or learn to ignore posts in which I am not an active participant.

In the future, I will refrain from these snipes or what you call “little gyul behaviour” which by the way, is no different than what you just posted.

But let me be clear in my opinion and not hide behind “little gyul behaviour”. I find that the persona you adopt on  this forum to be abrasive. Tireais was very generous when he described your response as “impolite” or “bad manners”. I would describe it as “bullying”. I have challenged you on this before and you have countered with comments such as  “Take that as ah insult if yuh want to... take it as a "personal insult" if it make yuh happy.”

What I find peculiar is that you have no need to adopt this persona. Your arguments are almost always spot on, articulate, thoughtful and logical. Yet you feel the need to throw in disparaging or belittling comments to underscore your point. Maybe in your profession, this is a useful characteristic. But on this forum? I don’t get it.

But that is my opinion and no one is forcing me to read your comments.

How is it "bullying" or "impolite" or "bad manners" for me to tell him that his POSITION is detached from reality?  What about that was "disparaging" or "belittling" that it forced you weign in from the sidelines?? How else do you describe an opinion that is not supported by facts?  He took my comment as a personal attack on him:

I'm wrong then I'm wrong, you don't have to accuse me of being detached from reality.

I rather suspect that you suffer from the same malaise that affected Tireasis, an initial failure to comprehend what was written.

[Tiresais]

Your point is taken. I should not engage in posting these snipes or taking pot shots at you in this manner.  I realize that I am like a moth drawn to a flame. I find it difficult to resist making tongue-in-cheek, acerbic or sarcastic comments to certain posters. I realize I tend to do this most often with you, JC and TT (when the latter two were active posters – incidentally, you and JC replies are quite similar; TT responded differently).  Rather, I should engage directly or learn to ignore posts in which I am not an active participant.

In the future, I will refrain from these snipes or what you call “little gyul behaviour” which by the way, is no different than what you just posted.

But let me be clear in my opinion and not hide behind “little gyul behaviour”. I find that the persona you adopt on  this forum to be abrasive. Tireais was very generous when he described your response as “impolite” or “bad manners”. I would describe it as “bullying”. I have challenged you on this before and you have countered with comments such as  “Take that as ah insult if yuh want to... take it as a "personal insult" if it make yuh happy.”

What I find peculiar is that you have no need to adopt this persona. Your arguments are almost always spot on, articulate, thoughtful and logical. Yet you feel the need to throw in disparaging or belittling comments to underscore your point. Maybe in your profession, this is a useful characteristic. But on this forum? I don’t get it.

But that is my opinion and no one is forcing me to read your comments.

How is it "bullying" or "impolite" or "bad manners" for me to tell him that his POSITION is detached from reality?  What about that was "disparaging" or "belittling" that it forced you weign in from the sidelines?? How else do you describe an opinion that is not supported by facts?  He took my comment as a personal attack on him:

I'm wrong then I'm wrong, you don't have to accuse me of being detached from reality.

I rather suspect that you suffer from the same malaise that affected Tireasis, an initial failure to comprehend what was written.

Your problem Bakes is that you don't let your argument stand, you instead have to resort to attacks of some sort or the other, usually in the final sentence. Your arguments stand and fall on their merit, yet you must belittle other positions that do not match up with yours. This is part of the parcel of bullying, and if you can't see what me and pecan are saying then I suggest you look back through your previous posts and delete all sentences that involve comments that could reasonably taken in offence.

[pecan]

Let's dissect the comment on being "detached from reality". While it may be accurate within the context of available facts, and you yourself have no intention on being impolite and bullying, I would argue that many people, if told directly that they are "detached from reality", would view that as an insult or if not an insult, then a "put down" or condescending jibe. You ask, "How else do you describe an opinion that is not supported by facts?" How about" "Tireais, you are misreading the facts, here is what I mean".

It all comes down to how you deliver the phrase.  I suppose it is a "touchy feely" aspect that I have become aware of in dealing with HR issues in the workplace as well as attempting to resolve conflict between family or friends.  Truly, many of us should have no emotional capital tied up in the Forum; for the most part, it is a faceless and anonymous environment. So why bother to apply social conventions that hold more weight in face-to-face interaction?. The problem with this is that most people read more into email, text msg or social media comments than they actually need to. I suppose it comes down to a matter of style. I am not likely to use the phrase "you are detached from reality" unless I wanted to deliver a barb or I was using it in a humorous fashion. 

Even your statement that I suffer from "the same malaise that affected Tireasis" can be construed as a personal attack. That may be the reality in the true sense of the words when dissected, but my  perception (wrong or right) is a reality. I have come to realize that that is your style. But even a statement of fact can be misconstrued as an insult. I suppose that asking posters to be sensitive to delivery style is unrealistic on my part - I have often been accused of being naive.

Seriously Bakes, I have concluded that you operate on a higher intellectual level than most on the forum. And the very nature of your intellect leaves no room for the more sensitive on the forum.

[Bakes]

Let's dissect the comment on being "detached from reality". While it may be accurate within the context of available facts, and you yourself have no intention on being impolite and bullying, I would argue that many people, if told directly that they are "detached from reality", would view that as an insult or if not an insult, then a "put down" or condescending jibe. You ask, "How else do you describe an opinion that is not supported by facts?" How about" "Tireais, you are misreading the facts, here is what I mean".

Seriously Pecan, what is your deal?  Can you appreciate the difference between "your POSITION [...] is detached from reality" and "YOU are detached from reality"?  Did you even follow the dialogue leading to the exchange in question?  Clearly you did not... or if you did you didn't understand what you were reading.  The example you give makes no sense, this wasn't a situation where he was misreading facts, the man plain and simple said:

"any amount of alcohol impairs your judgement and ability to pilot an airplane."

From a physiological stand point this simply isn't true and this was pointed out to him prior.  He then stated that his position was "consistent", prompting my response.  This is why I took issue with your comment, it seemed you were just too eager to jump in and take a pot shot as you called it, rather than having anything to add to the conversation.  And now it seems clear that not only did you NOT have anything to add to the conversation, you clearly didn't even read what was taking place before jumping in, throwing words.

It all comes down to how you deliver the phrase.  I suppose it is a "touchy feely" aspect that I have become aware of in dealing with HR issues in the workplace as well as attempting to resolve conflict between family or friends.  Truly, many of us should have no emotional capital tied up in the Forum; for the most part, it is a faceless and anonymous environment. So why bother to apply social conventions that hold more weight in face-to-face interaction?. The problem with this is that most people read more into email, text msg or social media comments than they actually need to. I suppose it comes down to a matter of style. I am not likely to use the phrase "you are detached from reality" unless I wanted to deliver a barb or I was using it in a humorous fashion. 

If you can quote me where I said this then maybe I would have something to answer to.  The fact that you're here repeating something that I clearly did not say, and not only did I NOT say it, I even elaborated to tell you in my previous post what I DID say, and it still made no impression on you.  You're still here repeating this inaccurate charge.  I'm not even going to respond to the rest, as it goes off on some irrelevant tangent about online/offline decorum.  People here who lime with me in person will tell you I am the same way whether online or offline, so no need for me to address this.

Even your statement that I suffer from "the same malaise that affected Tireasis" can be construed as a personal attack. That may be the reality in the true sense of the words when dissected, but my  perception (wrong or right) is a reality. I have come to realize that that is your style. But even a statement of fact can be misconstrued as an insult. I suppose that asking posters to be sensitive to delivery style is unrealistic on my part - I have often been accused of being naive.

Seriously Bakes, I have concluded that you operate on a higher intellectual level than most on the forum. And the very nature of your intellect leaves no room for the more sensitive on the forum.

It has nothing to do with higher or lower intellect, simple common sense would suffice.  How should I respond to you, since you didn't take the time to read the discussion in the thread, or you read it and misunderstood my comment... on the basis of that misunderstanding you decide to take an unsolicited "pot shot" at me... I point out to you that you are mischaracterizing my comment, I clarify for you that comment... and STILL you come back with the erroneous charge that I told this fella that HE is detached from reality?  And I am not supposed to respond in an offended way I suppose?

No I wouldn't ever get on a plane knowing that a pilot had taken even a single shot before flying - any amount of alcohol impairs your judgement and ability to pilot an airplane. Likewise, the definition of a drug is a substance that alters your body or mind, and any drug that has the potential to negatively impact your ability to pilot should absolutely be banned - you're playing with the lives of hundreds of people on board an aircraft whose most dangerous periods are take-off and landing - the parts that require the most concentration.

Drivers endanger typically single-figure individuals, rarely double figures. Pilots always endanger hundreds on a passenger plane, and double figures on the ground in a cargo plane. I genuinely can't believe anyone would be like "sure lets get on this plane with a pilot who has done a shot" - i mean what type of person thinks "yup definitely need a shot to fly this thing" - clearly their judgement is impaired sober let alone with a shot!

I find no conflict between the two - my position is consistent, hence why I couldn't understand the question. Are there people who'd be ok with their pilot taking a shot before flying?

This is simply not true... and I specifically said an hour before to allow for the acohol to dissipate from the body.  Your position is "consistent" because it's detached from reality.

[pecan]

It has nothing to do with higher or lower intellect, simple common sense would suffice.  How should I respond to you, since you didn't take the time to read the discussion in the thread, or you read it and misunderstood my comment... on the basis of that misunderstanding you decide to take an unsolicited "pot shot" at me... I point out to you that you are mischaracterizing my comment, I clarify for you that comment... and STILL you come back with the erroneous charge that I told this fella that HE is detached from reality?  And I am not supposed to respond in an offended way I suppose?

I re-read the post and I see that you did state that his "position was detached from reality". I now realize that I was quoting him and not you. In truth, I had nothing of substance to add to the original debate - that is why I did not engage in the marijuana debate per se.  I jumped in prematurely when I read Tireais comment about being you being impolite. Maybe my past disagreements with you have coloured my opinions.

But on a lighter side, your last reply was non-offensive even though I was clearly wrong with the reality comment.

[Bakes]

I re-read the post and I see that you did state that his "position was detached from reality". I now realize that I was quoting him and not you. In truth, I had nothing of substance to add to the original debate - that is why I did not engage in the marijuana debate per se.  I jumped in prematurely when I read Tireais comment about being you being impolite. Maybe my past disagreements with you have coloured my opinions.

But on a lighter side, your last reply was non-offensive even though I was clearly wrong with the reality comment.

 

[asylumseeker]

It has been interesting to observe how decriminalization in Uruguay operates on ground level. Among other things, people get to grow up to 6 plants for personal consumption. In the meantime, the military is cultivating a crop that will be dispensed by the government. In the main doh, yuh doh walk dong de street and smell cannabis in any kind of rampant way.

It was intriguing to watch some ex-Israeli soldiers blaze ah fire normel sitting dong outside Subway a few yards away from a judiciary building following munching on 30cm sub combos. A couple 20 something aged locals raised eyebrows, but everyone else carried on normally. Business as usual seems to be the deal.

Never heard this version until this week.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrBoASOj1oQ

[Deeks]

Seeing that we navel string tied so tightly to the U.S., I would advise them not to at the moment. There Is confusion in the US between some states and the Feds. A Trini will go Colorado and feel at home among the weeds of wisdom, but end up in detention in DC.

[asylumseeker]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/RI471vxsoyc&amp;feature=youtu.be" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/RI471vxsoyc&amp;feature=youtu.be</a>

New video.

[gawd on pitch]

Legalize the herb and save the economy. The amount of industry that will be created will be a huge benefit. Especially for the petro based economies.

[Sando prince]

Jamaica not playing. Lawmakers in JA passed legislation decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CB_JAMAICA_DECRIMINALIZING_POT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[asylumseeker]

One man's ganja campaign
Susan Mohammed (Trinidad Express)

If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.

So said self-proclaimed 'ganja activist' Kendell Mathura who has made a public declaration for the legalisation of marijuana, and has led a one-man demonstration hoping to catch the ear, and moreso the eye, of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.

Mathura, 32, of Moruga, first emerged at a United National Congress Monday night forum in Khanhai Road, Barrackpore, where he held up a placard among an audience of hundreds which read "Legalise weed Tanty Kamala".

On May 24, he again took his demonstration to the People's Partnership fifth anniversary celebrations in Macoya, and stood close to the front of the stage holding another placard which read : "Legalise it and raise revenue".

"I got a lot of stigmatisation in the meeting. A lot of people came and told me 'put down that, they will lock you up'. But if you stand for nothing you will fall for anything. I want to stand firm in this fight. There are a lot of people who will sign petitions that marijuana does good", he said.

Mathura told the Express in a telephone interview last Tuesday that he intends to attend as many political meetings where Persad-Bissessar will be speaking.

Mathura argued that there is a strong case for the decriminalisation of marijuana.

He believed that by the State doing that it will lead to solving some of the country's problems, to name a few, curb the crime rate, free up the bogged-down court system, increase the country's revenue, and spark entreprenuership. 

"We could create a lot of young entrepreneurs, boost agriculture in the country, as well as its import/ export. There is a market for it, and we could cut unemployment. We could get chemical companies involved and launch the idea", said Mathura. "We have to have regulations, stipulations and control its use. We won't just have people walking down the road with a joint in their mouths. That is lawlessness. People should have only a certain amount on them for use, such as an ounce, and if they have more then lock them up", said Mathura. 

He lamented that persons who are held with "one or two grammes of weed" are clogging the courts system and prisons, since their cases take a long time to complete.

He suggested that regulations such as an age limit for users, and designated areas for use, such as cafes, from reputable distributors should be put in place in its decriminalisation.

"People want to say marijuana is bad. But if someone does not like it, they will simply stop it. It's the same like alcohol. The only people who use alcohol are those who want it. And since cigarettes are not sold to persons under 18 then it should be similar for marijuana and for persons over 20", said Mathura. 

Mathura promises to return to the next meeting where Persad-Bissessar will be speaking with "bigger and double sided placards" to impart his message.

 

[asylumseeker]

Let Faris proceed accordingly. Don't be afraid to call the shot Mr. PM. Time to move on to more worthy issues of public policy.

[asylumseeker]

Legalize the herb and save the economy. The amount of industry that will be created will be a huge benefit. Especially for the petro based economies.

Not sure that will survive the scrutiny of economic reality.