|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 8, 2005 13:53:09 GMT
"Exhibit A: You don't see alcoholics moving onto cocaine and heroine, do you? Not nearly the same amount as marijuana users. So what's the difference? I bet that, if bartenders sold crack, most alcoholics would be crackheads, too. It only makes sense."
True you probably would, but I believe that there will always be a demand for such things and so these things will still be sold. Instead that with the drug scene opened up with the legalisation of cannabis you would have a lot more potential users to move onto the harder drugs.
"Not everyone feels the need to go on to try harder drugs" So I take it that you too are willing to satisfy your urges on the suffering of others?
|
|
gilligus
Diplomat
Ambassador from the Alliance of Socialist States
Posts: 100
|
Post by gilligus on Oct 8, 2005 18:58:32 GMT
As I've said, I'm not only pro-legalization for personal use. The leaves of the male marijuana plant can be used to make hemp, the benefits of which I've already stated.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 8, 2005 19:05:46 GMT
Industrial and clinical uses are all that I would permit myself. Personal use...nope.
|
|
gilligus
Diplomat
Ambassador from the Alliance of Socialist States
Posts: 100
|
Post by gilligus on Oct 8, 2005 19:26:29 GMT
But if personal use isn't allowed, people will still buy weed from crack and heroine dealers, and they will continue to move on to harder drugs because they have access to them. When weed is in ample supply for a lower price with strict regulations and reasonable taxes, nobody will feel the need to go onto harder drugs, and those who do will go to even better rehab programs than we have now.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 8, 2005 19:32:20 GMT
"nobody will feel the need to go onto harder drugs, and those who do will go to even better rehab programs than we have now."
The blatant contradiction within that sentance is astounding. People will still end up on the drug and valuable lives will be wasted, the drug is unessasary beyond the uses I have stated so why bother legalising it and stirring up a hornets nest of problems.
|
|
gilligus
Diplomat
Ambassador from the Alliance of Socialist States
Posts: 100
|
Post by gilligus on Oct 8, 2005 19:38:37 GMT
So are we now all for making everything illegal if it has no logical use? Should we ban music? How about candy? Hmm?
It wouldn't stir up a hornet's nest of problems. It would resolve, or at least tone down, alot of problems. Gangs wouldn't compete so muh over dru-selling territories, not as many pople would be killed in drug busts, not as many people would be in prison...the list goes on. And what would we stir up? A little bit of worker laziness. For me, the social benefits outweigh the economic downfalls.
|
|
Ketoprofen
Defence Forces
Ketoprofen - The Proletariat Coalition
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Ketoprofen on Oct 9, 2005 14:21:41 GMT
Your arguments center around the level of lethality surrounding cannabis, RM. That's fine - no one is forcing you to inhale it. However, those of us who wish to use should not be jailed because of us having some fun with a joint or two after school. We are entitled to do what we want with our body and no one has the right to tell us what we are or are not allowed to do with it. It's as simple as that. You find it morally offensive - which in itself is a rather reactionnary stance for a socialist - but you shouldn't be imposing by force your own set of values on others who have done nothing wrong.
I smoked a joint yesterday. I liked it, I'm fine and it was great fun. What do you care? Why should you care?
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 9, 2005 17:12:49 GMT
Music is culture also you cannot move onto harder forms of music, nor will music kill you, ok maby being stuck in a lift playing emenem :.) but on the whole the worst your gonna get is a bit of tinitus if you play your music insanely loud. Candy, has its uses in cooking, cause dont get me started on what they put in food nowadays, can also be used as a reward for young children, where would parents be without that bribe? :.D Gangs would still be competing over land, people would still die in drugs busts, true less would go to prison but we would end up with more addicts and as you said educational and worker standards would drop and im sure there would be many more accidents.
I do indeed argue the medical issues and I always say its not worth it for somthing that is so unessasary. All the time I hear about the rights of the individual, to live in a society you are by nature giving up some of your rights to become a member of that society, smoking cannabis damages society so therefore it should be banned. true it is not as bad as taking the harder drugs straight off and there are far worse crimes but damage occurs non the less. Leave society and smoke it for sure but not in society where it can do more damage that just to you. I find it an unessasary passtime that would damage society even more than it does now if it was legalised. I motion movement towards a society without recreational drugs full stop, where they are never used, exploited or manufactured beyond their medical/industrial applications. I see the re-legalisation of cannabis to pre-1928 legal status (UK) as a regressive opinion.
|
|
Ketoprofen
Defence Forces
Ketoprofen - The Proletariat Coalition
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Ketoprofen on Oct 10, 2005 8:27:57 GMT
How did I harm society by buying weed from a friend of mine who has a plant and smoking it later after school in the privacy of my own house ( well in this case, it was a friend's ? )
How?
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 10, 2005 12:35:50 GMT
Lets not individualise this with personal cases, for every one of you, who is acting quite sensibly (other that the risks to your own health, by the way if you do suffer medical calamity [absoluterly hopefully not though, hopefully totally hyperthetical!!!!!!] will you be paying for treatment yourself?) there are many more who are not, it them who primarily I am concered about!
|
|
Ketoprofen
Defence Forces
Ketoprofen - The Proletariat Coalition
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Ketoprofen on Oct 11, 2005 8:09:55 GMT
It is the right to the individual to decide what he wants to do with his own body - no matter what those in power may think of it morally. If he wants to relax with a joint after work, it's his right and the extremly vast majority of those who do this will suffer no harm from the weed or it's casual use. People like it - people don't suffer from it hence it's popularity. As is the case with anything in society, accidents happen. Should we ban fat food on the premises that some have grown to be obese? Should we ban alcohol because there exists alchoolics? Should we ban cigarettes? It is the duty of society to help those less fortunate and that have gone astray on the road of hard drugs but we have no right to deprive those who enjoy marijuana of this personal pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 11, 2005 10:03:39 GMT
It is indeed our duty to help society and its my opinion that cannabis for the good of society should remain banned. At the moment it is under control if it were legalised then the very foundation of your argument would be shaken as we would see more of the negative side effects due to the increased ammount of regular users, as I say its not worth the pain for somthing so unessasary. It was banned in the first place, is there no smoke without fire?
True accidents happen but that is not an excuse for maximising the damage. Fast food (and most food in general) needs reform, alcohol should be restricted and managed better, cig's should be banned from public areas and cannabis should remain totally banned, if you want to smoke have a cig in private, why the need for drugs, or even better do somthing constructive while you relax? If we take your argument the other way why not de-regulate food standards, allow smoking anywhere and remove all alcohol restrictions? Restrictions are there for the good of society, you are a minority who is unfortunately on the wrong side of this but as you say accidents happen and you can quite happily live without it, unlike the addict who will suffer in the reverse minority situation. Simple logic and be happy your sacrifice has saved many from unessasary torment, no?
|
|
Grothistan
Military Diplomat
Prime Minister of the Equilism Commonwealth
Posts: 66
|
Post by Grothistan on Oct 11, 2005 13:27:26 GMT
The debate for illegalizing marijuahna was not at all sober. It was an attack on mexicans in America (seen that they used it a lot, and the americans weren't too pleased with them). That was back in the 30's. One Candian campaigner said that "A single puff of this [marijuahna] will make a mexican go crazy, losing all sense of moral behavior, and nothing limiting him from savagely killing his fellow man."
Holland legalized Cannabis. Holland is internationally well-respected, has a good reputation concerning education and healthcare in particular, and is often look at as an example to other west-european countries. And from what I've heard from the dutch people I know (and I know a few), it simply is not a problem.
Being addicted to cannabis is psycololical. It can be compared to anorexia - Your mind is screwing with you. In the case of the anorexic, the mind is telling you that eating is bad, and you must not do it. With cannabis addiction, your mind is telling you that you need cannabis.
Both are wrong. Eating is not bad (atleast not when you're as skinny as anorexics), and your body will NEVER need cannabis to function properly.
Both groups must be helped, and the best way to help them is not to make them criminals.
|
|
gilligus
Diplomat
Ambassador from the Alliance of Socialist States
Posts: 100
|
Post by gilligus on Oct 11, 2005 17:20:22 GMT
Very well put, comrade Groth.
I would also like to add that Holland has a higher average life expectancy, by almost three years, than the US, and nearly two years higher than that of the UK.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 13, 2005 14:35:44 GMT
Well in the case of the USA then, they seem to have done the right thing for the wrong reasons.
The laws of the Netherlands actually class cannabis as illigal, what is different is how the law is enforced. There is actually debate on clamping down on the retail of cannabis and re-criminialising it.
Acknowleged that there is no biochemical addition but there is a psycological one caused by a biochemical effect on the users brain. I shoot a person in the head with an AK-47, I tell their mother I shot him with an RPK, is there a differance in if he was shot or not?
True, both must be rehabilitated, but cannabis must be illigal to act as a deterrant to others. I believe in a sliding scale of punishment, make the dealer suffer more than the end user. I think you have more of an issue over the enforcement of the law as opposed to the law itself?
Wonderfully irrelivent, thankyou gill :.D!
|
|