Bonzo77 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 There's talk in California of legalizing cannabis in addtion to an exisiting program that allows the weed to be given for medicinal purposes. Legalizing it for wholesale distribution wont work, an exercise in futility since no matter what the governement of California does it's still illegal under Federal law and that I assure you will never change. Still in the end it amounts to nothing more than talk since even in liberal California it would be political suicide for any politician even one who leans left and liberal to even discuss it. Wouldn't make sense either since there is a very active anti-smoking program to curb tobacco use which has achieved some success over the past two decades. It's up to individual nations to establish their own drug policies. What might seem reasonable in Sheffield wouldn't stand a chance in Beijing or Kulala Lumpur and no liberalization of the laws would stand a chance in any Islamic country either. Sneaking a jioint could well cost one their life in such communities. As for America it is still very much a country orientated towards Christian belief, even if Christianity is fast disappearing in Europe and decriminalization wouldnt stand a chance nationally. As for the Mexican drug wars it's not completey unreasonable to see it as just scumbags killing scumbags. With a bit of luck they might just wipe each other completely out eventiually or weaken themselves enough for the Mexican government to finally finish them off. Anyway go on talking all you want about "international agreements" but as I've explained above and hope I've made clear it wont happen for the reasons I've stated. The fact that there is 'talk' of ot in California Os a stein the right direction. We'll see cannabis legalised in our life times. Maybe not in yours, but definitely in mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The fact that there is 'talk' of ot in California Os a stein the right direction. We'll see cannabis legalised in our life times. Maybe not in yours, but definitely in mine.[/QUOTE] You are, by your own admission a smoker of a substance that could in the long term become addictive. I dont know how often you indulge and it's none of my business. I on the other hand dont. Dont bet on beating me in the longevity stakes. Using a substance that could impair your judgement could lead to accidents just as alcohol can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The fact that there is 'talk' of ot in California Os a stein the right direction. We'll see cannabis legalised in our life times. Maybe not in yours, but definitely in mine.[/QUOTE] Dont bet the farm on that. I dont mess with sheet that was never meant to be of any benefit to mental or physical health Cannabis in various forms can most definitely be beneficial to both mental and physical health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Why would Christians be against cannabis? I can't remember reading anything about Jesus speaking against it in his teachings. He did, however, invent the stuff (as his earlier incarnation as God) From that bible book: "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be meat" -God, day 3 None of this matters as under Federal law marijuans is illegal. Washington state and Colorado are taking a vote on the marijuana issue but even if it passes it's still null and void under Federal law. Transporting even a small amount of the stuff from either of those above mentioned states to another state when pot is illegal means arrest and possibly conviction in that state and a felony record on top of that. So it's obvious that any law to legalize pot nationally would have to be passed by Federal law and I dont see that happening anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Cannabis in various forms can most definitely be beneficial to both mental and physical health. So can a glass of wine a day if it's not abused. Question is if it were legal who would sell it? Would whoever it was be required to sell only a prescribed limit within the law? And if so how would that be effectively overseen? At the moment patients who are prescribed pot for medical reasons have to get a doctor's prescription first but what about a situation where it was available for everybody? There are no laws on the books to regulate the quantity of tobacco or alcohol sales so again if pot was legal but required to be regulated in quantity who is to do that? Also as in alcolhol and tobacco there are the abusers who sooner or later need either medical or rehab programs which are paid for out of public taxes. Would there be a future scenario where in addition to the above we now have to pay for rehab programs for pot addicts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 So can a glass of wine a day if it's not abused. Question is if it were legal who would sell it? Would whoever it was be required to sell only a prescribed limit within the law? And if so how would that be effectively overseen? I think you're softening to the idea Harleyman, good on you. These are not insoluble questions - but you can really only realistically answer them by proposing a complete drug legalisation process in detail. But to take pot as an example. The objective should be to reduce harm - so that means education. Vapourise, don't smoke. If you have to smoke it, use a water bong. If you're rolling reefers, don't use tobacco etc etc. Also - harm reduction means restricting use to adults. Especially with powerful psychoactive drugs like cannabis and psychedelics. For psychedelics (and cannabis) to be used safely (psychologically speaking), the user needs to be grounded. That means a bedrock of established understanding that has been worn into the mind by experience. The mind of a teenager is as we all know, very fluid and very susceptible to influences, and smoking pot and dropping LSD at young ages, especially adolescence, is where a lot of the problems stem from. Obviously you cannot totally prevent access to minors, but with legal pot available, the amount of black market pot is going to be drastically reduced, and strict enforcement of the ban on sales to minors can be effected. At the moment patients who are prescribed pot for medical reasons have to get a doctor's prescription first but what about a situation where it was available for everybody? That's the situation now - it's available for everyone. Legalisation means taking control of the bulk of supply and ensuring it's sold in sensible amounts to responsible (within a reasonably wide definition) adults only. No advertising, no promotion. Production of pot is akin to beer (and of course hops and marijuana are both cannabacae) - and just like beer the mass market stuff is mostly awful, so you need a dual layer production policy. Licenced large scale producers, but also the equivalent of home brewers and micro breweries. There are no laws on the books to regulate the quantity of tobacco or alcohol sales so again if pot was legal but required to be regulated in quantity who is to do that? Well in our age of smart cards, RFID, face recognition and all that jazz, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with workable solutions to detect usage patterns that might represent a problem. But in the vast majority of pot users, it never becomes a problem, and if it does they quit. On a side note, many of my old pot smoking buddies of the day have quit, decades ago. I have not. Most pot smokers simply lose interest after a few years. A few of us don't and carry on using it into old age - it really is an ally for us. Also as in alcolhol and tobacco there are the abusers who sooner or later need either medical or rehab programs which are paid for out of public taxes. Yes and the focus of the legalisation process in this respect must be to reduce the number of problem users even making it as far as the "casualty" stage. This is done by education. Would there be a future scenario where in addition to the above we now have to pay for rehab programs for pot addicts? By axing government support for the drinks industry, and treating it a little more like the tobacco industry, and applying the same logic to the 'recreational' drugs industry - namely well regulated product, restricted in how it can advertise, who it can be sold to and when and where it can be sold, the need for rehab programs for any problem users will decline. Nothing will ever be perfect, but anything has got to be better than the bloodbath and catastrophe being presided over at the moment, in the name of the "War on Drugs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 None of this matters as under Federal law marijuans is illegal. Washington state and Colorado are taking a vote on the marijuana issue but even if it passes it's still null and void under Federal law. Transporting even a small amount of the stuff from either of those above mentioned states to another state when pot is illegal means arrest and possibly conviction in that state and a felony record on top of that. So it's obvious that any law to legalize pot nationally would have to be passed by Federal law and I dont see that happening anytime soon. That's your answer to explain yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 There's talk in California of legalizing cannabis in addtion to an exisiting program that allows the weed to be given for medicinal purposes. Legalizing it for wholesale distribution wont work, an exercise in futility since no matter what the governement of California does it's still illegal under Federal law and that I assure you will never change. Still in the end it amounts to nothing more than talk since even in liberal California it would be political suicide for any politician even one who leans left and liberal to even discuss it. Wouldn't make sense either since there is a very active anti-smoking program to curb tobacco use which has achieved some success over the past two decades. It's up to individual nations to establish their own drug policies. What might seem reasonable in Sheffield wouldn't stand a chance in Beijing or Kulala Lumpur and no liberalization of the laws would stand a chance in any Islamic country either. Sneaking a jioint could well cost one their life in such communities. As for America it is still very much a country orientated towards Christian belief, even if Christianity is fast disappearing in Europe and decriminalization wouldnt stand a chance nationally. As for the Mexican drug wars it's not completey unreasonable to see it as just scumbags killing scumbags. With a bit of luck they might just wipe each other completely out eventiually or weaken themselves enough for the Mexican government to finally finish them off. Anyway go on talking all you want about "international agreements" but as I've explained above and hope I've made clear it wont happen for the reasons I've stated. Yes, of course. Just American scumbags... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 This bit always gives me a hollow laugh, the man who exposed the Iran-Contra affair Gary Webb committed suicide, dying of two gunshot wounds to the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Yes, of course. Just American scumbags... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking You havent a clue what you're talking about Pancho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.