The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Cannabis
LewieP
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I was at the pub with a bunch of mates last night, and the topic moved to the discussion of cannabis. A wide range of views were offered by various people.
Some thought that the only reason that it is illegal in the UK because of "the ignorance, narrow-mindedness and collective groupthink of the voter and decision-makers", arguing that our society would be better off, or at worst the same, were cannabis to be legalised.
Others thought that "addiction, health and social problems contributed to by cannabis would be worsened by making it more available by making it legal", and that the benefits of legalisation would be outweighed by the drawbacks.
I sit somewhere in between these two opposing viewpoints, although certainly nearer the former argument. I think that the regulation framework that could be put in place by legalising it would certainly be beneficial, and tax revenue generated could be used in a range of very useful ways. The fact that alcohol is legal yet cannabis isn't feels very illogical to me, and I struggle to see a scenario where the government could make a completely rational decision about it, but I am certainly open to the idea that there are aspects of the issues I have not thought of, and would like to broaden my understanding.
We also discussed how likely we think cannabis is to ever be legalised in the UK, estimates ranged from "in the next 15-20 years" to "Not in our lifetimes"
How do you guys feel about it?
Some thought that the only reason that it is illegal in the UK because of "the ignorance, narrow-mindedness and collective groupthink of the voter and decision-makers", arguing that our society would be better off, or at worst the same, were cannabis to be legalised.
Others thought that "addiction, health and social problems contributed to by cannabis would be worsened by making it more available by making it legal", and that the benefits of legalisation would be outweighed by the drawbacks.
I sit somewhere in between these two opposing viewpoints, although certainly nearer the former argument. I think that the regulation framework that could be put in place by legalising it would certainly be beneficial, and tax revenue generated could be used in a range of very useful ways. The fact that alcohol is legal yet cannabis isn't feels very illogical to me, and I struggle to see a scenario where the government could make a completely rational decision about it, but I am certainly open to the idea that there are aspects of the issues I have not thought of, and would like to broaden my understanding.
We also discussed how likely we think cannabis is to ever be legalised in the UK, estimates ranged from "in the next 15-20 years" to "Not in our lifetimes"
How do you guys feel about it?
LewieP on
0
Posts
PSN: rlinkmanl
I imagine that there would be a lot of tax money brought in by legalizing it, but I really doubt that anyone (in the US anyway) that put, "I will legalize weed!" on the their ticket would ever get elected.
Politicians are afraid to jeopardize their careers by legalizing it. I think a good way to pitch the argument however is from the tax angle. Legalize it and tax the shit out of it.
Cut down the minimum sentencings for weed and you'll see prison space free up and that saves money too.
Dude, don't rat him out, that's not cool!
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I was hoping she would come along with something to contribute at some point ;-)
To me it seems like a win-win
edit: the only problems I can see are the slew of civil rights issues when companies start mandating that even though it's legal they don't want to hire employees who partake. But that's another issue entirely.
I don't know about the U.K., but U.S. prisons are already overcrowded to the point where new jails aren't keeping up with incoming inmates. I don't see too many jobs being cut with decriminalization.
Marijuana is not a chemically addictive drug. Nicotine and alcohol are both very strongly chemically addictive.
It can be habit forming, but that's true of anything you can consume.
http://www.thepotlawhasfallen.ca/
I'll post more on this later, but I have an exam in less than an hour and I should probably finish my cheat sheets.
Yep. I was just repeating the opinions contributed by some of my friends there.
You can also argue that smoking Cannabis with tobacco with nicotine will be addictive, but I say that is irrelevant because smoking anything with tobacco will be chemically addictive, so I call BS.
UK prisons are certainly overcrowded to some degree, I don't think the situation is as severe as in the US though.
Jam Doughnuts, Chocolate Chip Cookies and Chicken Wings, hopefully.
When the law and order politicians are ignoring the issue, that's a pretty clear indication of a "we don't care, but legalization would cause a lot of friction with our main trading partner" attitude.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Unfortunately, it's not clear if those charged in the cases are medical users - but the very lack of a distinction makes the law vague enough that it might not be applicable to anyone.
That said, I'm surprised that I hadn't really heard about this before now. My criminal law professor was Alan Young - probably the leading advocate of marijuana decriminalisation in Canada. However, Hutchinson is not a lawyer and I have a feeling that this defence might be a little narrower than it initially appears.
It does seem strange that it hasn't gotten more press, but those court decisions where people got their charges dropped happened quite recently, since the new year. The most recent was just in April.
Here is a national post article about it:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=336547&p=2
There's a lot there - but they also address many of the pros and cons . . . somewhere in there.
Here's another good one: R. v. Clay. I like what they tried to argue here. Basically, marijuana has to have a certain potency to do anything, but there was no requirement that it actually be tested when found in someone's possession to see if it was "real" marijuana. It was really just an attempt to move things in the accused's favour ever-so-slightly by forcing the Crown to mess around with expensive laboratory tests for each and every person charged with possession.
They could go join the army.
It would also reduce one of the avenues of racial oppression (selective drug law enforcement).
Criminalization is so stupid it's mind boggling. This is not even a debate.
I'm kinda curious as to what conditions validate a medical marijuana card. Gluacoma and eye conditions? I could see it having some use in depression, anorexia, and maybe some of the personality disorders.
The first question is kinda tough, MM is still relatively new and the feds aren't helping things with their laws conflicting with the state's.
As for the conditions to get it, the answer is "enough money to pay the doctor who gives them out"
Legalization of most or all narcotics is inevitable because it has reason on its side. Society will just take its time catching up to the notion that drug use doesn't have to be dangerous and simply isn't necessarily criminal in nature.
Things are not going to be perfect until the proper education is there- education that isn't marred by misconceptions and fear-mongering; rather, honest facts about the dangers and benefits of mind-altering substances. I wish I could say this was a reasonable timeline, but we apparently still can't handle the legal poisons.
Medicinal marijuana is a legitimate but minor argument for legalization. Of course some (very few) people would be better off with access to it. Just as many would die smiling in the loving arms of heroin, rather than rot before their families because legal medications simply can't handle their pain. I, for one, would like that choice.
Choice being the keyword here, since many of us live in the west, a group of countries which belt out the phrase "freedom," as often as they exhale. Prohibition is destructive and as much as prohibitionists mean well, there are much better ways to combat addiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_II_drugs
Show A and C. It depends on your definition of "abuse," and "high potential," but there is no physical dependence upon pot, and its psychological dependence could hardly be considered "severe."
And do tell, VC. Why was it recriminalized in Cincinnati?
To make it easier to arrest black people.
In Canada the discourse is essentially at a shaky truce between the people who think mandatory minimums will keep those evil drug dealers away from their five-year-olds, and everyone else who is too baked to really do much of anything right now. Very few Canadians see marijuana prohibition as anything other than a sick joke and a symptom of our continued appeasement of our excessively paranoid southern neighbour. Even the cops could give a fuck. Keep it away from schools and don't be a dick, and you can pretty much smoke pot anywhere in our great land.
that's...not entirely true
the last incident involved shooting a mentally handicapped black guy
nobody wants to see a mentally handicapped guy get shot, but when he's holding a brick and ready to throw it at you, you don't know he's mentally handicapped and gotta defend yourself
What a sad world we live in.
As ambiguous as that statement is, I'll leave it there because I just got called up for dinner.
And the one before didn't put his hands up fast enough.
As opposed to it's current status.
I take Ritalin, and I can tell you it's plenty hard to get.
I guess all drugs will leave I when we return addiction treatment to the list of valid treatments.
I don't take Ritalin, and I can tell you its not hard to get at all. But everything else being equal, Marijuana should be legal straight and simple. The most substantial issue, at least in my opinion, surrounding Marijuana is not health or morals or crime but of privacy and government intervention. Do we, as free-thinking Americans and a free-willed people, not have the ability to choose whether or not to consume Marijuana provided with full knowledge of the substance?
I was wondering this too. I am pretty stoned at the moment, and it is quite good.
My favorite thing is, I get this flashback thing where I'll say something, forgot I said it, hear myself saying it, and wondering who the hell just said that.
Also, Trainwreck will fuck you up.