Lol, all of a sudden you're concerned about the garden!! Sounds like your wife is already having an effect on you in that area?Originally Posted by Coldkiwi
Zed
Seated in heavenly places
Lol, all of a sudden you're concerned about the garden!! Sounds like your wife is already having an effect on you in that area?
Zed
Forum whore
Legalise the whole kit and caboodle, from class A hard stuff to weed.
Remove the possibility of there being any organised crime gain from the drug trade.
Register drug addicts in the same way as paedophiles the moment they end up in hospital as a result of abusing a substance. Refuse them medical care from that point on and let a few junkies rot in the street.
Execute women who kill viable foetuses via drug abuse. Remove children born to junkie women the instant the come out with no recourse EVER to have contact with that child.
Watch how quickly hard drugs disappear from casual use in educated societies.
Watch how the global population reduces to a sustainable level, because all the stupid people who would have been protected from being stupid by the artificial constructs of civilisation do stupid things that kill them. Like in the "good" old days.
I guess I'm saying criminalise the effects of drug use rather than the drugs themselves. After all that is apparently a good enough process for punishing those who misuse alchohol, a la drunk driving.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
Workin' Socially!
After reading all this info I think I'm far more likely to support decriminalisation of dope rather than legalising it.
There will always (sadly) be the abusers of all situations, they types that are more prone to addiction.
I kinda sing between supporting the ideas that Jim2 has put forward & taking a softer line...I mean it's kinda of survival of the fittest and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing - oh sorry getting off the topic now.
My goal in life is to be as good a person as my dog already thinks I am.
Man, you are too square.
[QUOTE=jrandom]This is a bit tangential, but did you know that most of the major 'baccy companies have already registered trademarks (and presumably done a lot of R&D work behind the scenes) in preparation for the day that some country, somewhere, legalises weed?
I don't remember any of the product names, but they were quite catchy and appropriate. QUOTE]
'Marlys/Marlies' is supposed to be the one Marlboro registered. Now which well-known reggae singer would they be thinking of there?
Bear in mind the following when the Dutch situation is quoted as an example:
1) No other European country has the same sort of freedom.
2) The local population is well enough educated and used to it to leave it to the tourists (mainly).
3) It has land borders and 'porous' border controls with the rest of Europe, and is easy to get to from the rest of Europe.
The point being that it's mainly 'drug tourists' who cause the problems in Amsterdam, cos they can't get it at home and they can easily get it in, and get to, Amsterdam. People predisposed to have problems have naturally gravitated there. If the same conditions applied Europe-wide, they would be more dispersed.
I think there's probably a lot of truth in the 'hard' follows 'soft' argument for some people, because some people have addictive personalities, and will
become hooked on booze, gambling, drugs, infidelity, speed (vehicular kind) etc etc.
But on the other hand, there's plenty of people who'll go and have a glass of wine/beer and use it as a social thing without taking it too far. The UK has a real problem with a macho binge drinking culture because alcohol and getting trollied carries a sort of 'mystique'. It's almost a rite of pasage to wake up covered in your own vomit.
Compare that with France/Italy, where it's common to have watered down table wine available at dinner for young teens, and they grow up thinking alcohol is no big deal. Being so drunk you're unable to stand up is very much frowned upon. It's a different approach and a different culture.
Having said that, I don't think you will ever stop a very significant proportion of the population wanting to get out of their trees, no matter how perfect your society.
In my view a sensible approach to education would be a good start, rather than the semi-hysterical nonsense that gets taken as gospel by both sides. The 'pros' would have you believe that smoking is practically harmless. It ain't. It's a psycho-active substance and if your brain's wired right/wrong when you try it then it's going to hit you where it hurts.
The 'cons' on the other hand ignore the fact that prohibition didn't work for booze in the US, and that booze is not a particularly society-friendly substance, even though it's legal. the US has terrible problems with young binge-drinking, and a legal drinking age of 21.
The 'war on drugs' in the US was/is about as effective as the 'war on terror'. If you make sentencing for pot as harsh as that for heroin, then dealers will switch to heroin because the profits are better. The same argument could be raised for legalising/decriminalising pot (dealers will switch from 'soft' to 'hard' because that's where the money is).
All of this is a long-winded way of saying that the current situation is f**ked. Booze and weed, one legal, the other not, is ridiculous (I make no argument for or against, I simply point out that it is utterly ridiculous and illogical).
I would welcome an intelligent public debate on the subject, nationally or globally, but I won't hold my breath.
With harder drugs, young people (mostly) are going to continue using themselves as guinea pigs, and no amount of prohibition is going to stop them. People want to, and always will want to, get high. In my opinion, the sensible approach would be to demystify and educate. Countries where this sort of pragmatic approach is taken tend to have less problems than those where the 'iron fist' approach is taken. Bear in mind that I'm coming at this from the UK/Dutch angle, where 'recreational' drugs (E, speed, cannabis etc) are much more prevelant. Certainlyin the UK, 'rave culture' has turned a goodly proportion of one generation into guinea pigs. The long-term effects of that have yet to be seen, but there's quite a few young people out there who didn't become drug-crazed killers on taking their first puff, and are wondering what else they were lied to about. and unfortunately quite a few of them will assume it's harmless cos they ain't dead yet, and end up burning their brains to a crisp.
There's plently more I could say, but that's more then enough for now.
I'd rather be thinking
Not much that needs to be added to what you have said. It's all sensible, reasonable arguments and I agree with pretty much everything you have written.
Age is too high a price to pay for maturity
Crikey!
I think it's all about substance abuse, it's not too important what the substance is, but if you abuse it, bad things are going to happen. I think weed is a lot easier to use responsibly than alcohol though.
Eg. you get really baked, and sit on the couch laughing your ass off to whatever happens to be on tv at the time while munching down on some pizza, then fall asleep. Or you have a few too many drinks, get loud and obnoxious, possibly violent, and generally make anywhere near you, a bad place to be.
I can hardly stand going to most clubs in town any more, because they're mostly filled with drunken rednecks looking for a fight, or trying to slobber all over your girlfriend. However there are other clubs where people might share the occasional joint, have some good conversation and generally enjoy themselves and the music instead of being assholes. I know which one I'd rather be at.
However I've still seen plenty of people get fucked up from smoking too much weed constantly, so if there was a bit more education I think it would help. People have got to be willing to change themselves though, but I spose that's the way it would be with anything.
Crikey!
Oh yeah, how about the bzp/tmfpp "herbal pills" (frenzy, exodus, charge etc) you can get now too. They're legal since they're classed as a dietary supplement. You can pick em up for about $2 a pill and 2 of them will get you quite a bit more off your tits than a whole lot of weed will ever get you.
Where do they fit into this little debate?
Forum whore
Back in the late sixties and early seventy there was indeed a rumour that the tobbacco cartels had indeed registered the street names of the most potent of 'the weed.' I have no knowledge if this is true but considering the ethics of the tobbacco companies all things are possiable. Mexican Green better known as Acupulco Gold was one. The earliest (to my knowledge) of 'the weeds' to enter into NZ was Durban Poison.
Skyryder
Free Scott Watson.
Forum whore
Well, in general terms, *anything* can be taken moderately, or perhaps more accurately 'in a controlled' fashion with little or no ill effect and often to confer health. Even outright poisons like datura can be taken in a controlled fashion for medicinal reasons with little health risk (see: Pueblo Indians of the Americas)
Another example is a sizeable movement of Canadian and U.S. Psychiatric doctors who beleive ecstacy has more beneficial effects and less undesirable side-effects than current 'legal' anti-depressants.
Weed does have beneficial medicinal properties, few experts disagree and the chemical properties of THC are not under question (the misinformed public is a different matter all together) - what I don't think has been covered here (I did skim some posts tho) is to what extent are we talking with legalisation, specifically:
1. Legalisation for medicinal purposes, where dosage is metered out by doctor's prescription only.
2. Legalisation for any purpose, especially casual or perhaps social, where anyone who fits the criteria, eg over 18 y.o., may purchase a joint from a licensed premises (or perhaps even the corner shop, if you wish to go that far).
I see absolutely no reason to ban any drugs at all, if controlled under option number 1. Actually, personally I see no reason to ban myself from option number 2, either, but the sad fact is there is a large number of people who just can't moderate themselves.
I do have a problem, a big problem, with people who want to ban shit (like drugs, for example), as much as I have a problem with people who like to censor anything. Personally, I think they should butt the fuck out of other people's lives, but that's just IMHO. In practice, I realise that a lot of people just aren't smart enough to keep themselves out of trouble. Me? I drink, but I never NEED a drink. I gamble, but I never need a FIX, and I have experimented with drugs and have several more to experiment with, but I've never felt the NEED to go back to them. If everyone was like this, we wouldn't need to ban drugs at all. Life wouldn't be as spicy though, as I'd have less people to get pissed off about...
On top of that, we all know prohibition doesn't work, so why waste the energy.
If anyone would like to read more about all drugs from both a biology/chemistry based scientific standpoint as well as a 'street' or personal experience standpoint, you can't go past:
http://www.lycaeum.org/
Thoroughly informative reading.
Sorry about the long post...
Forum whore
You probably listen to the wrong kinda music. I've never had agro problems at house/hard house/trance kinda clubs - I left all that behind when I stopped going to rock/indie type places full of shaven head westies full ot the brim with beer...
Forum whore
Hey, I'm with Jim2 (jeeze, Jim, I AGREE with you on something? Go figure, perhaps having an 850cc V Twin is making you more cleverer?? (despite the engine being the wrong way around)
Look folks... I'm a hell of a nice guy... I've drunk from lifes cup to the full and experienced a few (um) experiences.....
Now! I'm a rotten drunk! I have a very stressfull life and I self medicate with alcohol... Like a zillion others....
HOWEVER....
I don't work, drive, make love, ride or sign documents with words containing more than 3 sylabyls (see I'm stonkered already) under the influence...
Come up with a decent test for drug and fine the living crap out of folks that mess up while wasted... However, if they want to smoke a doobie and chill out at home with a few nice tracks on the stereo.. Good onya!
Taking responsibility!!! Thats the ticket!!!
Paul in NZ
(hey, I'm ON holiday today)
Crikey!
Heh, that was my point.. I'd much rather be at a hard house/trance/dnb club than any of the other regular bars in town.
I'd rather be thinking
Yes, agreed, but this is really the whole problem, isn't it? If we were all the same there would hardly be any need for laws at all. If everybody was honest and peaceful there would be no crime. If everybody was dishonest and violent there would be nobody that needed protection.
So as usual it's a matter of where to draw the line to provide protection for those who need it with the minimum interference in the lives of those who don't. It will always be a compromise.
Age is too high a price to pay for maturity
Loud and Uncouth
Huh?????????????????????
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
Man, you are too square.
The argument neatly summarised to fit into my handy nutshell.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks