Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Blue_Jay said: 

Turncoat said: 

Blue_Jay said: 

Why now ?

People know about cannabis these days and it cannot be ignored.

It could have very well been, people liked weed arguably just as much before.

That isn't the point though, and it matters not that people liked it before. We're more knowledgeable about cannabis and less programmed by the propaganda that denounces what it really is.

That only happened because of interests bigger than us making that happen. 

Do you mean to say special interests opened our eyes and not an entire community of experienced enthusiasts ? Or are you repeating the same thing ?

I'm curious as to why then, rather than earlier or later. 

The economic boom started. Corporations couldn't keep using Hemp, it'll only get cheaper and products would last. The baby boomer generation followed as the economic boom also put an increasing spike in the human population.

Now the chemicals and cheaper materials are established. We're aware that the produce from the substituted materials are hurting us. Still, nothing changes so easily. We'll continue to build combustion engines and burn oil into the air for awhile, because Corporations are established.

Since hemp isn't grown as much as it should, it's gotten quite expensive.

Still it has a market, it just won't be "The Cream" used for bloody everything like it should be.

What was keeping it from public consumption was a big business decision, and it would have always turned a profit, so it's worth wondering what really changed that made it suddenly permissible. 

You're basically repeating what I said.

Not really, you seem to think everything is going as normal as opposed to it being a symptom of some other agenda. 

Heh. Yes really. You're repeating an earler post I made in here. I mentioned big business being the cause and I said why.

Come on now, this isn't a "Will of the People" situation like Prohibition was, this is them giving people permission to smoke and it's likely over a larger reason that has not been disclosed.

It's simply so the Canadian government can make more money.

That would have made them money earlier than when it was implimented, yet you seem content to not ask questions. 

Am I no longer a shameless conspiracy theorists all of a sudden ?

Trust me. How I seem to you is false.

The pacification must be working. 

Heh. An insult.

On that note, if the people weren't willing then there would be no reason to legalize it. You can argue it isn't the will of the people, though the consumers, the people, got what they wanted.

The majority don't even smoke the stuff, and a lot choose not to even with legalization. 

 I doubt you really think,  that I think most people are cannabis consumers. Just in case, I'll say stop kidding yourself.

So you really think why they bothered with legalizing it is as simple as a price increase on hemp? 

Turncoat said: 

So you really think why they bothered with legalizing it is as simple as a price increase on hemp? 

I don't know what to tell you Nathan.

For a University professor, it's required for his students to have a certain level of intelligence. Otherwise he can't teach what he's supposed to. It's the same with everyone else really. 

I don't know if you're putting on a show, maybe you are. The only thing that's clear is I need to stop wasting time. 

Blue_Jay said: 

Turncoat said: 

So you really think why they bothered with legalizing it is as simple as a price increase on hemp? 

I don't know what to tell you Nathan.

For a University professor, it's required for his students to have a certain level of intelligence. Otherwise he can't teach what he's supposed to. It's the same with everyone else really. 

I don't know if you're putting on a show, maybe you are. The only thing that's clear is I need to stop wasting time. 

I'm just asking you what you think is why they legalized it now, rather than later or earlier, and your answer is effectively "Hemp's scarcity is higher now, and people know the truth about the drug", which is the most surface level read for reasoning through this I've seen. 

Come on now. 

Turncoat said: 

Blue_Jay said: 

Turncoat said: 

So you really think why they bothered with legalizing it is as simple as a price increase on hemp? 

I don't know what to tell you Nathan.

For a University professor, it's required for his students to have a certain level of intelligence. Otherwise he can't teach what he's supposed to. It's the same with everyone else really. 

I don't know if you're putting on a show, maybe you are. The only thing that's clear is I need to stop wasting time. 

I'm just asking you what you think is why they legalized it now, rather than later or earlier, and your answer is effectively "Hemp's scarcity is higher now, and people know the truth about the drug", which is the most surface level read for reasoning through this I've seen. 

Come on now. 

 I answered that question multiple times now. Your conclusion is based on a single component I mentioned and you're going with that as the actual answer.

- We're more educated about the substance today. ( I mentioned this twice I think )

- Government Money Grab. It's what they call a cash crop. ( Mentioned more than once )

- The Boomer era, which was an economic boom in technology and other products which established today's materials, plus today those materials are set in stone. ( Mentioned once )

You're asking the same question over and over again. Then you conclude my answer to be something I mentioned about Hemp's market value. Then ask the same question and ignore the answers.

I'll do you a favor. 

Canary said: 

Turncoat said: 

Blue_Jay said: 

Turncoat said: 

So you really think why they bothered with legalizing it is as simple as a price increase on hemp? 

I don't know what to tell you Nathan.

For a University professor, it's required for his students to have a certain level of intelligence. Otherwise he can't teach what he's supposed to. It's the same with everyone else really. 

I don't know if you're putting on a show, maybe you are. The only thing that's clear is I need to stop wasting time. 

I'm just asking you what you think is why they legalized it now, rather than later or earlier, and your answer is effectively "Hemp's scarcity is higher now, and people know the truth about the drug", which is the most surface level read for reasoning through this I've seen. 

Come on now. 

 I answered that question multiple times now. Your conclusion is based on a single component I mentioned and you're going with that as the actual answer.

I don't have a conclusion though, I have questions and suspicions. 

People weren't that different between the time periods right before legalization and decades before it, but something made it worth putting on a platform then, rather than earlier or later. It would have still turned a profit regardless of when they did it, just not for corps like Big Lumber, which was what prohibited it's sales for so long... so what happened?

Did lumber company CEOs start smoking or something? 

- We're more educated about the substance today. ( I mentioned this twice I think )

This reason is pure fluff, people have understood the substance for a good long time and those who demonize it under the 'war on drugs' banner still consider it a drug (because... well, it is a drug). 

All that's really adjusted the layman's acceptance towards it has been trends steering the public, and even then it didn't really push them much further than where they already were. 

- Government Money Grab. It's what they call a cash crop. ( Mentioned more than once )

This would have been a cash crop if done earlier, too, the same cash crop that in the past would have hurt existing businesses. 

I'm questioning what the tipping point was. 

- The Boomer era, which was an economic boom in technology and other products which established today's materials, plus today those materials are set in stone. ( Mentioned once )

This is where you mentioned hemp, then implied that it's scarcity is why it's allowed..? 

Following that you began making some weird point of repeating yourself as if you weren't being listened to, when I am only stuck asking the same questions over how you didn't really address the point of it. 

I find the timing of legalization suspicious over how not much was really that different otherwise, it makes me question the larger motivation. 

You're asking the same question over and over again. Then you conclude my answer to be something I mentioned about Hemp's market value. Then ask the same question and ignore the answers.

All I see is you continuing to not understand my question, you keep answering the same way in a way that doesn't actually address the question. 

You're oversimplifying it for some reason. 

Turncoat said: 

Canary said: 

Turncoat said: 

Blue_Jay said: 

Turncoat said: 

So you really think why they bothered with legalizing it is as simple as a price increase on hemp? 

I don't know what to tell you Nathan.

For a University professor, it's required for his students to have a certain level of intelligence. Otherwise he can't teach what he's supposed to. It's the same with everyone else really. 

I don't know if you're putting on a show, maybe you are. The only thing that's clear is I need to stop wasting time. 

I'm just asking you what you think is why they legalized it now, rather than later or earlier, and your answer is effectively "Hemp's scarcity is higher now, and people know the truth about the drug", which is the most surface level read for reasoning through this I've seen. 

Come on now. 

 I answered that question multiple times now. Your conclusion is based on a single component I mentioned and you're going with that as the actual answer.

I don't have a conclusion though, I have questions and suspicions. 

You concluded my only statement in regards to its legal status is solely based on hemp's valuation

The economic boom that started in the 30's was a time when invention with chemicals was on the rise. Corporations started using the inferior alternative because they could make more selling regularly to the same people. Like foam sponges instead of a hemp sponge. When the idea to do this came into effect or how it took would be unknown. Ford also produced a car that runs on hemp bio fuel, 2000 miles later it's exhaust was clean.  Hemp was then a threat to bio oil as gasoline is made from crude oil. Hemp would've destroyed big oil and that's 1 case. Even money was made with hemp and it was finer quality paper that can take more abuse.

By the 70's the economic boom was still in effect as the boomers were having offspring. Cannabis was still demonized in the mainstream. The rise of the internet in the 90's came about, and eventually the internet saved Cannabis.

Why now ? Most world leaders are baby boomers. In Canada we certainly wouldn't expect Stephen Harper to legalize something the schools are teaching it's a schedule 1 drug. 

As mentioned Justin Trudeau is young at heart and isn't a part of the boomer generation. Legalization was part of his agenda. It could be because he knows about cannabis through experience, or probably knows Cannabis smoker, or is mimicking the Portuguese. When Trudeau came into power it took a couple of years but he did it by 2018

That's why the fuck now, in Canada. In the states, same shit, but not all states.

- We're more educated about the substance today. ( I mentioned this twice I think )

This reason is pure fluff, people have understood the substance for a good long time and those who demonize it under the 'war on drugs' banner still consider it a drug (because... well, it is a drug). 

Those who demonize it believe it's an "illicit" drug. In my opinion drugs are synthetically processed or extracted and engineered substances. Some say coffee is a drug, while others suggest all foods are drugs.

Y'know. In today's world the truth comes out and spme of the brainwashed cannot accept it.

- Government Money Grab. It's what they call a cash crop. ( Mentioned more than once )

This would have been a cash crop if done earlier, too, the same cash crop that in the past would have hurt existing businesses. 

I'm questioning what the tipping point was.

I answered that, and I did it again in this post.

- The Boomer era, which was an economic boom in technology and other products which established today's materials, plus today those materials are set in stone. ( Mentioned once )

This is where you mentioned hemp, then implied that it's scarcity is why it's allowed..? 

I clearly said it's scarcity drives up it's price, because it wasn't being grown and harvested as abundantly. Hemp was never illegal.

Following that you began making some weird point of repeating yourself as if you weren't being listened to, when I am only stuck asking the same questions over how you didn't really address the point of it. 

Tbh. You're unable to learn from me. Your ego prevrnts that. If you weren't so lazy you could go research it yourself and find what you shouldn't already known from me.

Your question is. Why now and not before, or the future ? And the answered pass through your head.

I find the timing of legalization suspicious over how not much was really that different otherwise, it makes me question the larger motivation. 

Your intuition leads you astray yet again. But don't let me stop you. Go seek out what you're looking for.

You're asking the same question over and over again. Then you conclude my answer to be something I mentioned about Hemp's market value. Then ask the same question and ignore the answers.

All I see is you continuing to not understand my question, you keep answering the same way in a way that doesn't actually address the question. 

You're oversimplifying it for some reason. 

 At this point I gave you a history lesson. But like I said you can't learn from me. Your ego will have you asking me why endlessly.

You might think you're being smart, just because I'm responding to your foolishness, but as usual these little chats we have won't age well for you.

You have a very... optimistic view of government. 

I don't really see it being as simple as it naturally phasing into leadership positions, as the 80s proved that is not difficult to do at all during the cocaine craze. 

Turncoat said: 

You have a very... optimistic view of government. 

I don't really see it being as simple as it naturally phasing into leadership positions, as the 80s proved that is not difficult to do at all during the cocaine craze. 

 Yet that was the case with our subject Justin Trudeau. Before Trudeau Harper was in power for 11 years

Golden_Eagle said: 

Turncoat said: 

You have a very... optimistic view of government. 

I don't really see it being as simple as it naturally phasing into leadership positions, as the 80s proved that is not difficult to do at all during the cocaine craze. 

 Yet that was the case with our subject Justin Trudeau. Before Trudeau Harper was in power for 11 years

Just seems like a sheep answer tbh.