Free the weed, dope, cannabis, hooch, Fri 4 Feb, outside Auckland District Courts

[Usarka]

So why legalise some other potentially troublesome product too?

Good point. No new fast food outlets.

[ducatilover]

Good point. No new fast food outlets.

No sexy women either, they distract me when riding.

[bogan]

Shouldn't that have been in quotes . and Nope... that's what the legal highs are for .

If the only reason to keep weed illegal is because it causes mental problems, then you're right, you should ban just about everything that changes the chemical balance of the brain... including them Mad Cows and Jacob. In which case I'd say there are definately crossovers between cannabis and coffee etc...

So what reason do you have for its legalisation then, if you can legally get high already?

Indeed, there are going to be pluses and minuses for many different aspects of the situation. Which is why the arguments for or against legalisation must stand on their own, not just say it's better than so and so (which is legal) for this single aspect.

When the advocates for its legalisation have difficulty putting together a solid argument, is does tend to suggest there might be a downside in cognitive ability from prolonged use

[Big Dave]

<<
So why legalise some other potentially troublesome product too?
<<

Because the cost of criminalising it is worse than the damage it causes.

The whole issue of drug addiction needs to move to medical governance.

[Usarka]

+1

And because drug rules contradict our societal conditioning. Not well? Have some medication. Need a boost, have some caffeine, booze, sugar etc. Take this. Take that. Call me in the morning.

But don't you dare take that because it makes you feel good!

[007XX]

OMG, you guys are making sense...Please take something for that

[mashman]

So what reason do you have for its legalisation then, if you can legally get high already?

Indeed, there are going to be pluses and minuses for many different aspects of the situation. Which is why the arguments for or against legalisation must stand on their own, not just say it's better than so and so (which is legal) for this single aspect.

When the advocates for its legalisation have difficulty putting together a solid argument, is does tend to suggest there might be a downside in cognitive ability from prolonged use

My reasons were outlined a few posts back. I see no other reason than alleviating some of the economic impact on the tax payer, as well as creating jobs... after all it's a safe drug in comparison to tobacco and alcohol, that can save lives and by default must be good for you

The arguments will never stand on their own, irrespective of which side of the fence people are sitting on. To you it's all about me getting stoned and destroying brain cells and being useless (i'd very much argue the opposite on all (bar the useless) of those and hell (getting stoned is just a pleasant side effect)). The argument that you have just used, the so and so is better than such and such is the exact same reason they use to surpress Cannabis... oh the irony... that's why the arguments will never be won. Tis ok for 1 side of the fence to use it, but when the stoners start playing the same game ... you just wanna get high

ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... and the lawmakers argument is much more solid and put together in such a way that legal highs can hit the market and by changing a single ingredient can keep hitting the market after having been banned bwaaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... You should never ride your motorcycle over the speed of 100 kmh.

[bogan]

My reasons were outlined a few posts back. I see no other reason than alleviating some of the economic impact on the tax payer, as well as creating jobs... after all it's a safe drug in comparison to tobacco and alcohol, that can save lives and by default must be good for you

The arguments will never stand on their own, irrespective of which side of the fence people are sitting on. To you it's all about me getting stoned and destroying brain cells and being useless (i'd very much argue the opposite on all (bar the useless) of those and hell (getting stoned is just a pleasant side effect)). The argument that you have just used, the so and so is better than such and such is the exact same reason they use to surpress Cannabis... oh the irony... that's why the arguments will never be won. Tis ok for 1 side of the fence to use it, but when the stoners start playing the same game ... you just wanna get high

ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... and the lawmakers argument is much more solid and put together in such a way that legal highs can hit the market and by changing a single ingredient can keep hitting the market after having been banned bwaaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... You should never ride your motorcycle over the speed of 100 kmh.

Taxing it is a fair enough reason, some figures for potential tax revenue might help you argument there though. Where are the studies showing is it safe in comparison to alcohol and tobacco? alcohol causes secondary damage from drunken bastards hurting themselves, while tobacco is harmful in itself, as I understand it.

And if you want to bring alcohol and tobacco into it, you need to evaluate the big picture for both, and not just compare a casual user with a heavy drinker. For example; do people do stupid shit/crash cars when high? and is stopping the later going to be police-able? I'm not sure what you mean with the irony bit?

Again, just because there might be unplugged loopholes in the system at the moment, doesn't mean weed should be legal!

To me, it seems the best argument, is that you want to (and believe you should be free to) get high, and the risks of developing a medical problem are ..... and risks of injury to self or other due to the altered state of mind are ......
Making a bunch of seemingly unfounded claims is not the way to go imo.

[mashman]

Taxing it is a fair enough reason, some figures for potential tax revenue might help you argument there though. Where are the studies showing is it safe in comparison to alcohol and tobacco? alcohol causes secondary damage from drunken bastards hurting themselves, while tobacco is harmful in itself, as I understand it.

And if you want to bring alcohol and tobacco into it, you need to evaluate the big picture for both, and not just compare a casual user with a heavy drinker. For example; do people do stupid shit/crash cars when high? and is stopping the later going to be police-able? I'm not sure what you mean with the irony bit?

Again, just because there might be unplugged loopholes in the system at the moment, doesn't mean weed should be legal!

To me, it seems the best argument, is that you want to (and believe you should be free to) get high, and the risks of developing a medical problem are ..... and risks of injury to self or other due to the altered state of mind are ......
Making a bunch of seemingly unfounded claims is not the way to go imo.

... sarcasm really doesn't translate well over the net eh (just a wee parrot of that doc you linlked to earlier) . At the end of the day, the debate has raged for decades, legal highs that produce the same effects of cannabis are available in your local dairy and a potentially safer drug is available. That should be enough imho.

The irony is that the same arguments, so and so is better than such and such, is used by both sides. 1 side to keep it illegal, the other used as a comparison in terms of danger... Yet only 1 side can use the argument that such and such is better than so and so... priceless.

fuck I larfed @ altered state of mind... and hard.

[bogan]

The irony is that the same arguments, so and so is better than such and such, is used by both sides. 1 side to keep it illegal, the other used as a comparison in terms of danger... Yet only 1 side can use the argument that such and such is better than so and so... priceless.

It's only ironic if the same people who say you can't use it, use it themselves. And if the same argument is used by both sides, it must be a pretty weak argument for them both as well

[scissorhands]

Diary farmers are primary producers, actually make something people want, spend locally and are an important contributor to our economy. As such they pay little tax

Cannabis farmers are primary producers, actually make something people want, spend locally and are an important contributor to our economy. As such they pay no tax

Diary farmers can and do damage waterways. Cannabis farmers can and do damage individuals.

The only real difference is cannabis is a lesser evil in terms of overall harm

[bogan]

The only real difference is cannabis is a lesser evil in terms of overall harm

We also need leather for motorcycle gear, and food

Also, I have a feeling the level of contribution to the economy might be a little different too.

[Usarka]

If drugs are so bad, how come most cocaine users have large incomes?

[Big Dave]

'Cocaine is NOT addictive. I should know, I've been snorting every day for the last 20 years' - Rita Rudner.

[mashman]

It's only ironic if the same people who say you can't use it, use it themselves. And if the same argument is used by both sides, it must be a pretty weak argument for them both as well

wouldn't that be hypocritic? I stand by what I said . so yeah, the argument is weak on both sides and ironic that legal highs still exclude Cannabis (is the way I'm looking at it)