Legalise the herb

[spudchucka]

No, but there will always be people in society who will prey on others in this way. It should not be a factor in the decriminalisation issue.

These buggers also spend their ill-gotten money on Harleys. Should we ban Harleys? (sorry WT - just a hypothetical argument here)

No, we shouldn't ban Harleys but we should be able to strip drug dealers of their assests.

[MrMelon]

The criminals who are making $$$ out of cannabis will simply move on to the next easiest & most lucrative black market commodity.

Its not like they will suddenly decide, "shit I better go get me a job". Is it?

That's fair enough, but the market for cannabis is much bigger than for any other currently illegal substance isn't it? If the illegal supply of cannabis was stopped, then that doesn't automatically mean that there's going to be all of these people who were previously buying it hanging out for their next black market fix of whatever was being sold.

[Blakamin]

Leagl to grow 2 plants for personal in Adelaide and Canberra... doesn't change anything..... people think "I'll grow 5 and give it to my mates" then people grow 20 etc.... they still sell the shit and get done for cultivation...

[MrMelon]

You can probably fit that one under natural selection then. If they're going to be greedy like that even after there's an allowance in the law for it, then maybe they need to get their asses busted!

[MikeL]

Why do you always like to take the moral high ground? Your views are obviously those of an idealist, not a realist.

I think I wrote once that you need a few idealists in society. I got a rather sneering reply, and of course I know that for many people "idealist" is just a synonym for impractical dreamer. But your comment about preventing young people from mucking up their lives shows that behind your actions is an ideal (a better society). Without ideals (which are based on moral principles) the law is just about power and control. And without ideals as a benchmark, theoretical though it may be, realism can become simple pragmatism, and the justification for policy and procedures is forgotten in the nitty-gritty of achieving a practical result. It's not a bad thing to stop from time to time and ask questions about why we do things. I asked the question about prohibition because it seems a logical consequence of your ideal. Your answer surprised me more by what you omitted than by what you stated: you didn't acknowledge the enormous practical difficulties in enforcing a total ban. I would have thought that a realist would have immediately rejected it as unworkable.

[Drunken Monkey]

Don't hold with the sorry arsed argument that "look at the problems alcohol causes, they might as well legalise cannabis", it is not a valid reason to legalise anything just because another negative item is already legal

Now we're going around in circles again. Control of Alcohol law _is_ a valid reason to legalise marijuana because is sets a legal precedent. It is not " . Go and learn how our legal system works. It's also not the only precedent = you have to factor in other items, such as dealing, health care, etc - you will find other law(s), current and historical, which sets a good precedent to maintain the current class c status of marijuana - I'm not saying they don't exist.
It just annoys me that we've been over this in great length and detail at the start of the thread, including some pointless mud-slinging, only to have you come up with that rather un-thought-through statement again.

[spudchucka]

I asked the question about prohibition because it seems a logical consequence of your ideal. Your answer surprised me more by what you omitted than by what you stated: you didn't acknowledge the enormous practical difficulties in enforcing a total ban. I would have thought that a realist would have immediately rejected it as unworkable.

Firstly you didn't ask me to comment on the practical difficulties of enforcing prohibition, history has documented that well enough.

Secondly if you had asked me was prohibition workable then you might have gotten the answer that you say I have omitted.

If you want specific answers then ask specific questions.

Prohibition is not a logical consequence of my ideal, its simply your idealistic view of how my ideal must appear to me! In other words, an assumption, which is what most of your last post consisted of.

Would you accept prohibition? If not, why not?

Just in case you forgot what you asked in the first place.

[bluninja]

I know it's not the herb, but this might is related to this topic...wow...why not legalise everything NOT

Controlled heroin use is 'possible'

[onearmedbandit]

Some interesting points have been made here, from both sides of the arguement. However, most who have an opinion on this 'oh-so-touchy' subject will be firm in their beliefs, whether they are from personal experience or pre-conceived perceptions. So I see this debate going nowhere, as it has done for the last 60-70yrs. Not to say we shouldn't discuss it, the airing of new ideas is of benefit for all.

So I will probably continue to have a quiet smoke after work, thats all I want, for the time being anyway. I'm not harming anyone else, nor anyones property.

[scumdog]

Now we're going around in circles again. Control of Alcohol law _is_ a valid reason to legalise marijuana because is sets a legal precedent. It is not " . Go and learn how our legal system works. It's also not the only precedent = you have to factor in other items, such as dealing, health care, etc - you will find other law(s), current and historical, which sets a good precedent to maintain the current class c status of marijuana - I'm not saying they don't exist.
It just annoys me that we've been over this in great length and detail at the start of the thread, including some pointless mud-slinging, only to have you come up with that rather un-thought-through statement again.

It's still a sorry-arsed bit of logic that was not thought up by me but just a quote from others - not my "un-thought-through statement".

If cannabis was to be considered for 'legalisation' then it should stand alone - not be judged in comparison to something like alcohol.

Leave it as a class 'C' imho.

[wari]

:spudbooge :spudguita ... AHh see fields of GREEn ...

REd rosees tooo ... ...

DA da da da ... FUrr me 'n you .... :spudguita ...

ANd ah fink to mah-self ....

whatta wundrrfull weed ... I mean werld ... ohhh yeaarrrrh ...

:spudwave:

STeady as she goes cap'n ...

[scumdog]

:spudbooge :spudguita ... AHh see fields of GREEn ...

REd rosees tooo ... ...

DA da da da ... FUrr me 'n you .... :spudguita ...

ANd ah fink to mah-self ....

whatta wundrrfull weed ... I mean werld ... ohhh yeaarrrrh ...

:spudwave:

STeady as she goes cap'n ...

StEer cleaR oF tHe DRugs Wari :spudwave:

[wari]

I DOnt do druggs ..

BUtt whilst grazing ... one does o-ccasionally munch da odd weed ...

[Joni]

:spudbooge :spudguita ... AHh see fields of GREEn ...

REd rosees tooo ... ...

DA da da da ... FUrr me 'n you .... :spudguita ...

ANd ah fink to mah-self ....

whatta wundrrfull weed ... I mean werld ... ohhh yeaarrrrh ...

:spudwave:

STeady as she goes cap'n ...

Over worked I see....

[Lou Girardin]

Isn't it interesting that some of these 'dangerous' drugs were once legal; cocaine, marijuana, morphine, etc.
Who stood to profit from the banning of these substances?
Because they sure as hell weren't a threat to society when they were banned.