Grothistan
Military Diplomat
Prime Minister of the Equilism Commonwealth
Posts: 66
|
Post by Grothistan on Oct 13, 2005 19:47:35 GMT
In the US, they did the wrong thing, for the wrong reasons, with wrong argumentation, and wrong legislation. Wrong wrong wrong!
... Wrong.
I can't see how it matter greatly, how they classify it - Fact is, you can buy it from legal coffee-shops.
With the wave of rightwing rhetoric and support over Europe, that is hardly suprising. In Denmark, there's debate on whether moslems should sign a plead of allegiance to our democracy, before they are allowed to become citizens. The fact that there's debate, doesn't neccesarily mean it's warranted.
The comparison is faulty. Cannabis has never killed anyone, and will never kill anyone, seen that it is non-lethal. You'll have to come up with a better example, that one is just demonizing towards cannabis, with little argumentation behind it.
Ideally, cannabis would be legalized. But for now, I'd settle with de-criminalizing. Baby-steps. But I fully oppose the law.
The people who (believe they) get addicted, do so because of two reasons - Firstly, they use it in excess. Secondly, and most importantly, they are weak minded. They are so insecure of themselves, that they bring themselves to believe that they need cannabis to function. People full of sad illusions - Illusions they allow, or rather force, to take control of their lifes. It is of course sad for them, and they need and deserve help, as does any other human being who cannot function properly.
But on the other hand, we have millions of users who do not get addicted. Millions of users whose lifes are not ruined, millions of users who can function properly in society with or without cannabis, but simply choose to indulge in it, because they consider it deligthful.
We should punish these millions of users, who by their actions have never hurt anyone, so that we may "protect" the few who will find something to get addicted to no matter what? 'Cause, that's how it works. The people who (believe they) get addicted do so, because they need the addiction. They need something to cling on to. I do not believe it is intentional, it quite clearly is their subconscience screwing with them. If cannabis is illegal, they'll buy it from pushers. If cannabis is impossible to get, they'll find something else - Cocaine, alcohol, speed, whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 13, 2005 23:36:49 GMT
;D
You can indeed, but what matters it that cannabis is illegal because it means that people can be brought to justice for misuse of the drug, if it is legal then it acknowledges that that the abuses are a taken fact and should go on reguardless. It is a good median for managment of the drug.
I would argue as to if it has ever killed anyone, that is a very broad statement to make, the example is that it does not matter on how the addiction occurs the end result is still the same, addiction that requires treatment and causes misery.
I would be more confortable with the netherlands situation, it is the best of both wourlds, to go further is a sign that you wish to use the drug without responsibility for the actions that it might cause, this action is reckless.
So as you derided me for attacking that minority who use cannabis as weak minded so I reverse that on you for attacking the minority within the minority who are suseptable to cannabis. This also shows a lack of humanity in my opinion, the will to do whatever reguardless of the suffering it might cause for somthing that is as you have acknowledged, unessasary.
Please state the scientific fact that someone who is suseptible to cannabis will also be similarly suseptible to the other mentioned chemicals, we are talking about a genetic prediposition here directly linked to cannabis!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Dobbyniania on Oct 17, 2005 1:23:05 GMT
RM there is no addictive property in cannibis you nit. It feels good so people sometimes get "addicted" to it. Much like how people get "addicted" to EVERY good thing! Gambling, sex, playing hockey, dancing eating pie, etc. Should we then outlaw every good thing in order to "protect" the citizenry? Methinks life would suck then.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 17, 2005 11:12:46 GMT
See below for 4 random sites on addiction from the first page of a google search, within what has previously been acknowledged in this debate it is addiction and an unhealthy addiction often going along with serious medical issues, indeed no matter what the cause anyone suffering these issues from thier activities should seek help! .... www.marijuanaaddiction.info/www.peaceandhealinghtml.com/addiction/drug_marijuana.asp
|
|
Ketoprofen
Defence Forces
Ketoprofen - The Proletariat Coalition
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Ketoprofen on Oct 18, 2005 8:20:31 GMT
I can't read the last two articles. Having read the first one, you could have replaced the word "marijuana" with the world "alcohol" and added that alcohol can also be physically adictive ( since the article nowhere states it is physically addictive ) and the article would still have made sense.
Are you supporting the criminalisation of alcohol?
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 18, 2005 15:24:02 GMT
Sorry about the links, il sort them out sometime.
On the alcohol I definately support its restriction and that it should be used sensibly and within moderation, no binge drinking etc. Criminalising it would solve certain issues espectially if it was enforced correctly, however total enforcment would probably be unworkable due to the ammount of users, you would criminalise every single person in the UK on a fri night LOL! Id have to consider that policy....... Cannabis though considering its user base is much easier to restrict. I would not legalise cannabis just because alcohol is legal though, thats like saying heh people have pistols, lets give them rifles as well? The de-legalisation of cannabis was a brilliant step in the right direction, its too late for that with alcohol.
|
|
|
Post by small green plants on Oct 18, 2005 22:56:13 GMT
RM you say Cannabis though considering its user base is much easier to restrict. . This shows how hopelessly out of touch you are within the real world. The UK authorities have been trying for decades now to do what you suggest to the point where even before the recent reclassifying of cannabis to a class C drug, they had long ago given up it's pursuit for small quantities. At the risk of demonstrating my somewhat lengthening years I remember a time when a friend of mine was "busted" on the basis of scrapings from his fingernails revealed a minuscule amount of cannabis. I now have a few friends who are in the police force who are quite happy to sit down and enjoy a toke, and I have personal experience of being found in possession of about a half ounce of (very good) skunk and instead of prosecution, being given it back and asked to make sure I did not smoke it in a public place. The use of such substances is far more widespread than you seem to be able to conceive and it is far too late to put the genie back in the bottle. As to being easier to restrict, I would say that it is beyond the point where it can be restricted.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 19, 2005 18:38:04 GMT
How am I out of touch, cannabis is easier to restrict than alcohol because its not being sold all over the place (unlike alcohol) and a large proportion has to be shipped covertly into the country (unlike alcohol)!
Contary to it would seem popular belief, I would not have had your freind shot for his fingernails being a little dirty. As I have said before i believe in a sliding scale of punishment, I would have done what the second example did and not prosecuted him, but I would have had the drug confiscated. I hope your freinds dont smoke on duty, although with the police in the condition they are today it wouldnt suprise me, they should be setting a better example! Tell them RM says shame on them ;.D!
I have no illusions on the ammount of users, but the ammount of regular users is still a considerable minority! Effective control of the drug and its continued illigality is all I would want, total removal of the drug is highly improbably and in the current climate doomed to fail.
Hardly it is being restricted now and it will hopefully continue to be!
|
|
420celebrants
Diplomat
Canadian Ambassador and supplier of beer and donuts
Posts: 12
|
Post by 420celebrants on Oct 24, 2005 4:50:21 GMT
Well ... let me first say this - I live up to my name. As I type this, I am smoking a bowl.
I have smoked pot for the last 11 years on and off (mostly on) and am completely for it. Although I do not push my beliefs on others.
I enjoy the peace of mind that it gives me. I have many thought processes and ideas floating around in my cranium and a joint or bowl really gets things streamlined and effeciently more productive. I get more creative and more into what I am doing.
I do know all the supposed ills of it and the side effects and all that. Then again, I also know all the ills of cigarette smoke, but I also do that too.
I live in Canada and we have pretty lax laws on it here. It is really a grey zone. The police tend to go after the larger grow operations rather than the average user or dealer. The quality of the stuff is damn good too.
I personally think that it should be decriminalized and the government should hand out growing licenses which will be monitored for quality to make sure no grower is putting anything screwed up into it. The police could go after non licensed growers then. The government would make money on the licenses and might even care to sell the product as well, much like a cigarette. The goverment already makes a large portion of money usually from all alcohol and tobacco sales and they kill A LOT of people.
Bottom line - I celebrate 420. I don't see myself not celebrating any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 25, 2005 12:13:43 GMT
No suprises but I oppose your opinion LOL. Dealers and growers should recieve hard punishments but i would be laxer on the end user.
As a side question is it right that people should pay for others medical care when they get sick from self induced problems?
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 25, 2005 22:38:33 GMT
*shudder* twas her bday a little while ago, come on IRA have another go heh...
Im just playing devils advocate so, childless adults would pay as its benifits society, no matter how many cars you have your gonna have to use public transport sometime. Depends if it was genetically related, self harmers are psycolgically damaged dont have the same level of free will.....
|
|
420celebrants
Diplomat
Canadian Ambassador and supplier of beer and donuts
Posts: 12
|
Post by 420celebrants on Oct 25, 2005 23:19:11 GMT
Bah - I see your point completely regarding the dealers and growers getting harsher penalties ... but despite wanting to argue it, I've spent the last ten minutes writing and erasing my comment's because I personally kept poking holes in my own theories.
I personally think a lot of laws tied into marijuana are silly. For instance, if there are a number of consenting adults smoking a joint, which is completely legal here to do (legal to smoke it in public, legal to have rolling papers, legal to have up to 15 grams on your person), you can still get arrested by the cops for passing the joint to someone else you are with.
Trafficking is a lovely offense.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 26, 2005 16:24:47 GMT
LOL, il probably be long gone by then :>)
420 I agree its stupid, I suppose in the UK you would be classed as a dealer and arrested also. Personally I would just confiscate the stuff, but maby follow them, find out who they got it off in the first place and have them shot...........KIDDING!
|
|
420celebrants
Diplomat
Canadian Ambassador and supplier of beer and donuts
Posts: 12
|
Post by 420celebrants on Oct 26, 2005 17:16:35 GMT
I mean, despite using it, I will say that these large scale grow operations are a blight on humanity. The level of corruption, violence and high energy use really isn't worth the end result. Should the police be going after the user? No. Should they go after the dealers ... well ... maybe. The growers - yes.
It's like having the sale of a product legal, but the ownership of it illegal. Make growing it for sale illegal and possessing it legal.
I would believe now that we are completely on the same page if my memory serves?
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Oct 27, 2005 12:48:02 GMT
Why go after the poor Arab peasant that grows it to feed his family? We should simply put legalise it. We would drastically reduce the number of the so called "criminals", undermine the underground drug network, improve the economy and make a great advance from a democratic perspective.
This de-legalisation issue is reactionnary in my opinion, it doesn't belong in free and democratic societies where all individuals should be free to do whatever pleases them with their own body.
|
|