Originally posted by ale1552History has a way of repeating itself.
Why not decriminalize everything? It would save much time and money. No prisons, no police force. People who want to take drugs then could demand that the government provide it for them, pedophiles and rapists could do their own thing. Kids wouldn't even have to go to school unless they wanted to. Back to the laws of the jungle! In fact we would not even ...[text shortened]... ups you don't like....all Christians...hmm. I think this was already done somewhere, sometime.
What you say sounds amazingly like the fall of the Roman Empire...
And a window into the soon-to-come latter days in America.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 23319
Originally posted by Mathurinei think you present a good case for the legalization of cannabis.
One might very well contend that the ban on cannabis ought to be put in the balance against the loss of personal freedom; governments should respect individual free will and the right of self-determination. However, by taking an ostensibly moral stand against cannabis, clearly politicians seek cynically to gain more votes. The ban does not stop people smo ...[text shortened]... Let's keep the ban, and – for the sake of all our futures - do our level best to uphold it.
if made legal the dealers would stop making money from it, the government would be making it. this money could be put into all sort of things, housing for the poor, better health care, clinics that are trying to get people off drugs and alcohol, the list is endless.
there's no proof that pure cannabis is actually bad for you, none. yes mixed with whatever crap found in the dealers cupboard it can become a heath risk. the legalization of it would enable the government to produce a purer safer cannabis.
the fact is if you want cannabis you can get it, it's probably the easiest to get hold of illegal substance on the planet. it's a proven fact that alcohol and cigarette are more dangerous to a persons health than cannabis is, why are they not illegal?
cannabis smokers have the right to a good and cheap product that is readily available. this would be achieved if it was made legal.
drug dealers are in my eyes scum. but there is a market for cannabis so they will sell it and make a lot of money, where talking millions each year being spend on cannabis around the world. take that away from the dealers and it leaves you with less dealers of other drugs.....with less dealers the price will go up and it's possible that people on harder drugs will start to use the legal less harmful cannabis instead.
Originally posted by trev33Thanks, Trev33 - I could probably posit an equally cogent case against legalization, but it would be just as casuisitic as my trotting out the old "investigate legal models of supply" chestnut.
i think you present a good case for the legalization of cannabis.
I was interested in your statement: cannabis smokers have the right to a good and cheap product that is readily available. this would be achieved if it was made legal.
For "cannabis smokers" here could we substitute the name of any vilified group? How would that read then?
2 edits
Originally posted by MathurineYou're argument isn't logical. You state that the ban is unenforceable, then say we should do our best to enforce it. As a casual smoker of cannabis (i used to smoke it loads but not so much now that i'm older), i might just add that the 'innocent weed' that you (and I) used to smoke is only unavailable these days because of the ban. There is far more risk involved in trying to import weed from abroad than it is to simply grow it here. Buy a few lights, maybe even go as far as to set up a hydroponic watering system, all these things are easily achieved by anyone who wants to. Hell you can walk into a shop in the UK and buy seeds to grow "skunk" over the counter. Put some mud in a pot and you'll have weed to smoke if you give it enough light, it really isn't rocket science. I and many other 'users' would far prefer to smoke the original, weaker strains that come from the Caribbean and North Africa, it is the law that has fueled the explosion in super strong strains of cannabis. From a commercial point of view it makes perfect sense 1) There is less risk because you're not dodging customs 2)The plants have a MUCH higher yield so you get a lot more skunk per plant than you would from ordinary strains 3)Even though you producing more at less cost, you can charge more for it as it's stronger! Win-win-win, who's gonna pass that up?
One might very well contend that the ban on cannabis ought to be put in the balance against the loss of personal freedom; governments should respect individual free will and the right of self-determination. However, by taking an ostensibly moral stand against cannabis, clearly politicians seek cynically to gain more votes. The ban does not stop people smo Let's keep the ban, and – for the sake of all our futures - do our level best to uphold it.
What this ban really does is criminalise young people. That is ALL it achieves. I know hundreds of people who have or do smoke weed. Some of them were lucky and never got arrested, but a lot of them weren't so lucky. They can no longer work in jobs that require security clearance as they are 'criminals'. I know a few Police officers who used to smoke weed with me. Are they criminals? Hell no!
Kids will always experiment with drugs, period! As long as cannabis is illegal then the greater the chance of kids trying harder drugs becomes. It is very rare for a drug dealer to just sell weed, there really isn't any money in it. If you want to protect children then you have to differentiate between relatively harmless drugs like weed and more harmful substances. I know 15-16 year old kids who regularly take cocaine and they would never have had access to this had it not been through being offered it by dealers who sell them weed...
I cannot think of a valid reason to criminalise this plant. I can't see any reason why drinks like Tennats Super T, or Kestrel Super are allowed to be sold. The only people i EVER see drinking these drinks are alcoholics. It causes fights, it wrecks families, it fuels petty theft and generally makes our World a sh;ttier place! Not once have i heard anyone suggest that it should be banned. You put a can of that into a 15 year olds hands and you'll pretty soon have a child with problems. Put a joint in their hand and you won't be doing them any favours, but they'll walk away from it with far less problems. The double standards involved in this particular issue are just astounding...
2 edits
Originally posted by MarinkatombIt's not really a question of logic, is it? Just because a ban on something is apparently unenforceable doesn't mean that one ought not at least to try to uphold it.
You're [sic] argument isn't logical. ..
I agree with you that the ban should never have come about, and that it has made things far, far worse (generally speaking.) You wrote (if I understood you correctly) that we can't get the old style weed nowadays because of the ban. If we relaxed the law now, would that change, or would these modern kids with their taste for skunk simply run amok? Who knows?
You also made the statement: Even though you producing more at less cost, you can charge more for it as it's stronger! Win-win-win, who's gonna pass that up?
Marinkatomb... Are you a drug dealer, then???
1 edit
Originally posted by trev33Well, you said "...that the other place isn't in 'great' britain, only in britain and the uk." So I would presume "that the other place" is N.I., which isn't in Great Britain but is in the UK. However, I've no idea why you were saying that (if that is, indeed, what you were saying)...
you mean northern ireland right?
i don't know, is that what you would interpret from what i've said?
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 23319
Originally posted by Swlabrdid you watch any of the olympics last year? or any sporting event that the uk competed in as one?
Well, you said "...that the other place isn't in 'great' britain, only in britain and the uk." So I would presume "that the other place" is N.I., which isn't in Great Britain but is in the UK. However, I've no idea why you were saying that (if that is, indeed, what you were saying)...
the team would've been called 'great britain and n.i' not simply britain which would've included n.i.
you said why not 'great britain' when the other guy was talking about just england. i'm asking you why 'great britain' why exclude n.i?
it's part of the uk and under english rule.
maybe you didn't know that?
Originally posted by MathurineI'm not a drug dealer! I am able to grasp basic economics though. Less risk-higher yield-more profit, simple.
It's not really a question of logic, is it? Just because a ban on something is apparently unenforceable doesn't mean that one ought not at least to try to uphold it.
I agree with you that the ban should never have come about, and that it has made things far, far worse (generally speaking.) You wrote (if I understood you correctly) that we can't get the ...[text shortened]... r! Win-win-win, who's gonna pass that up?
Marinkatomb... Are you a drug dealer, then???
Look at Holland. You can buy whatever strain of cannabis you like, it's all there. Is Holland sinking into the sea? You won't see any drunk people on the streets who aren't English. They treat their citizens with respect and respect their right to do as they please (so long as, in doing so, they don't interfere with other peoples ability to do the same) THAT is how to achieve a peaceful, sober society. Treat kids like criminals, you get criminals, it doesn't take a genius to work that out...
Originally posted by trev33Point taken. However, while my usage of "Great Britain" was incorrect due to a mistake that many, many people make, dazza666's usage of "England" was not, I presume, a mistake.
did you watch any of the olympics last year? or any sporting event that the uk competed in as one?
the team would've been called 'great britain and n.i' not simply britain which would've included n.i.
you said why not 'great britain' when the other guy was talking about just england. i'm asking you why 'great britain' why exclude n.i?
it's part of the uk and under english rule.
maybe you didn't know that?
Originally posted by MarinkatombSeeing all those marijuana-seeking tourists is probably the best way to make it look uncool.
I'm not a drug dealer! I am able to grasp basic economics though. Less risk-higher yield-more profit, simple.
Look at Holland. You can buy whatever strain of cannabis you like, it's all there. Is Holland sinking into the sea? You won't see any drunk people on the streets who aren't English. They treat their citizens with respect and respect their righ ...[text shortened]... Treat kids like criminals, you get criminals, it doesn't take a genius to work that out...