Jump to content

6k_

Members
  • Content count

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

6k_ last won the day on May 19

6k_ had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

88 Excellent

4 Followers

About 6k_

  • Rank
    Just a Cool Dude

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've been saying this. They can't see the forest for the trees. Instead of (some) politicians trying to increase the price on cannabis however they can they should be instead concentrating on how to benefit from the spin off jobs. The nute companies, the cannabis testing companies, the machines to mass produce edibles, machines to process hemp, even drug impairment testing. Basically it benefits nobody for them to target a minority for taxation when they should be instead concentrating on the spin off opportunities. In one case they leave money in that minorities pocket whom will use it to buy more products, like a portable vape, or local take out, while doing everything they can to benefit from the spin off jobs being created all around... And the other they tax the minority and create a few spin off jobs with the taxes. The first benefits all in Canada, and the second only a few while hurting some more through the process. Or to put it another way you cannot create, or benefit, from innovation if it comes at the expense of others. At least in my humble opinion.
  2. Hey Ledora Welcome... From what I can tell they were given bans for minor infractions. Like something in the video may hurt somebody, etc... I think some have been given short term bans and will come back. So I don't think they are going after weed specifically. At least from what I can gather...
  3. 6k_

    female???

    Yup. Female.
  4. Lab you knows that billions of dollars creating thousands of companies creating jobs all over the country will do nothing to increase productivity but lying to jail minorities, keeping one of the most useful industrial plants illegal, and the illegal oppression of religions, will.... Somebody didn't read their economics homework.
  5. I heard Montreal was a nice city by a couple people whom been there. Nice to cannabis users it is apparently not. I'd like to know on what grounds they are going to try and ban it. Last time we went to court the insurance people testified it is no more dangerous then any other hobby... And some of their witnesses got discredited because the judge said they were acting like "religious fanatics." And on what legal grounds do you have to restrict access to any group but minors? And why shouldn't I be considered "normal" under the law, and in society? Please tell us how you would explain that to a judge. I want to hear what they call you this time.
  6. They would have a right to tax just as any other "governing" body. But I think most are forgetting to give a valid reason for the taxes. You can't just tax a group because you want to. Canada has laws against that.
  7. At first I thought both were unbanned and I cheered. Come on Youtube... Information and knowledge comes in all forms... You never know when a scientist in a Lab may be using it for general knowledge. Free the info... And FYI. I love Youtube because of all the educational talks and lectures. Just because something may not look educational to one doesn't mean it is not to another.
  8. If only they spent the money we gave them on actual research instead of making up lies for a hundred years....
  9. It's just fear mongering to make up and justify a reason for taxation. Fear, fear, fear, where is our taxes...? Same as non-natives are doing.
  10. I was seeing red, and not in a good way, and forgot to add something. And that is if they want to put people with a predisposition for psychosis or schizophrenia should not use cannabis on the labels then I could live with that. It will still be illegal under Canadian and International law but we won't say anything. Anything else is just a "tea" campaign and would require a public relations campaign that will destroy them to counter it. And for those "trained" in psychology that will say paranoia is covered under psychosis and schizophrenia... Please don't quote that horse shit that doesn't even qualify as science and none in the field will defend when pushed to because it makes you sound like you have no clue on how human psychology works. Paranoia is simply caused when concepts linked to fears or uncertainties are triggered within the mind. New cannabis users feel these new concepts, or electrical patterns, and it triggers minor fears or uncertainties because of those new concepts triggered within them. This now triggers the glands that controls our fears and releases the chemicals. Thus paranoia based on these will be created. It will always work the same way because of the way the mind works and is designed. For example when a cannabis user eats something the buzz will subside and so will the concepts linked to the fears and the paranoia will go away and return to their normal. Now because this process is slightly different in each individual, because of the way the concepts and fears are created and linked within the mind, and also because glands can operate differently in different people, that is why the warning label should be there. And has nothing to do with that horse shit that doesn't even qualify as science. And I would like to discuss the psychosis and schizophrenia in more detail but considering the term psychosis has two meaning in the field of psychology, and so does schizophrenia depending on whether you are talking about the symptoms or the cause itself, and when you combine the terms it means something else... I'll just wait for clarification as to what they really mean. I am pretty sure they mean the last one but I would like to make sure first since the last one is a crime. But in basic I'd highly recommend getting rid of "tea" campaigns and replacing it with a warning that people with a predisposition to psychosis and schizophrenia should not use cannabis, or be cautious with it. It is illegal but it is the truth. Also get rid of the junk science that leaves out societal factors to mislead people. I would also remove things that you cannot prove; like the stats on driving. But if they are intent on running this campaign I should warn them that the science behind a "tea" campaign will always show more psychosis, schizophrenia, and other mental conditions, in the group running the campaign then the group they use it against. Science will also show that if you run these campaigns it will cause more mental conditions in the targeted group, such as psychosis and schizophrenia, then whatever the targeted group is doing. In this case smoking cannabis. And science will also show that the ones running the campaigns will want to ignore the crimes and effects of them against the targeted group because it will all cause more mental conditions, like the ones mentioned, then whatever the targeted group is doing. I could go on, but that should be enough.
  11. Considering current cannabis prohibition violates international law, violates Canadian law, violates our charter of rights and freedoms, and also violates Canada's crimes against humanity legislation, I don't think the United Nations will argue or put up much of a fight. The question is why isn't the United Nations changing their legislation?
  12. The Tea campaigns are a four step public relations campaign. It has a purpose.
  13. "Regular use of cannabis can increase the risk of psychosis and schizophrenia." Considering you can literally say anything can increase the risk of psychosis and schizophrenia, like a barking dog, or car horn, and worse when younger, how did they determine cannabis does? If you are telling people that cannabis users have this risk I'd like to know the science behind it. For instance if I took a group of psychologists and began talking about cannabis prohibition will you see more or less psychosis then seen with a group of cannabis smokers? If they are telling people that they have this risk so they will repeat it I'd like to see that science behind it first because it sounds like the old campaigns against "Tea" and could lead to people repeating it. "Up to half the people whom use cannabis daily have work, social or health problems from using cannabis." How did they determine this effect was because of the cannabis use and not the effects of prohibition? Should I list some of the lies doctors, police, and the government told? Unions cut cannabis users out of jobs. Wouldn't this have an effect too? I think they may be forgetting the social factors that will not be fixed anytime soon which would go into any determination of this. And just curious... After they tell the population half of cannabis users have all these problems, or in basic that is what they will hear, and then the population avoids hiring them, or just avoids dating them, or starts blaming all the problems they have with cannabis smokers on smoking cannabis as directed too by the field as an easy out, will you then say, "We told you so...", and call it science? The good thing is if they use this then we can all watch a high priced public relations team figure out why pointing out cannabis users may not be doing well as non-cannabis users is a stupid idea. Personally I think these regulations are complete junk and need to be completely redone. For instance with driving instead of a nice little warning about driving high and it not being worth the risk or something they started adding things I doubt they can prove when pushed to. That just gives people a way to attack them, or ignore them, instead of just having a single thought that would lead them to thinking about the risks or harms. It's just bad public relations. I also do not see a paranoia label. Most bad experiences I've seen with newbies are because of paranoia. No label on that? And why drag tobacco into this? Are they trying to link cannabis to the tobacco campaigns they have been running through linking one group to another to make the first seem worse through the connection? What for? Why not talk about just the product?
  14. 6k_

    new to cc

    Welcome...
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.