Printable View
Well what do you think legalising something is going to do, of course it is going to encourage drug use, especially if Tesco's get hold of it?Quote:
No one said anything about "encouraging" people to do anything. You never answered my question, by the way - do you drink?
I thought that was a rhetorical question, of course I drink, what do you think I do in all of those pubs I'm always posting pictures of?
Also see the Belgian Beer thread - art in a glass. (All legal)
That's not "encouraging" use, that's simply commerce. Do they "encourage" you to buy string cheese? I bet you could pick up a can at Tesco. It's your choice whether to buy it or not (as it should be).Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Buy why? Isn't it "damaging to your health?" Doesn't drinking cause problems for society? What value is there in it? (besides that wishy-washy "one glass of red wine a day" argument)Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Basically, why should you be allowed to indulge YOUR drug of choice, but if I indulge mine, I could get sent to prison for fourteen years? Where's the justice in that?
Marijuana is just better, no hangovers, no vomiting, no violence, no headaches, no loss of inhibition (aka. slutty drunk people), no passing out, you can't OD and the addiction factor is practically nil. There's absolutely no sane reason why a person should be sent to prison for over a decate for having a joint on them. If you can't see that, then I simply don't understand your point of view. What you seem to be saying is "it's smelly." So... okay then. You're pushing for social stagnation and promoting a nanny state, which doesn't bother me as much because you're not in my country, but I still don't get it.
Also, it sounds like you're trying to make it seem like this is all some fringe idea. According to an impartial poll, the majority of Canadian adults believe that marijuana should be officially legal. We do live in a democratic country, and government efforts to influence the views of the general public on this issue have failed miserably, so I think the law will change (as laws often do - I can't believe I have to say that, but apparently I do). Americans smoke a lot of marijuana too, and they're very liberal in terms of the stuff (even though they could go to prison for it, for some profoundly stupid reason). I'd say they're not far behind us.
Do you seriously believe that the law always equalls justice ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Anyway, if I posted pictures of me smoking weed in a caffe in amsterdma, would you view it more or less like you posting pictures of you with a beer in a pub, or would you view the former as ilicit behavior and the latter as normal behavior?
Am I the only one who in this thread has suddenly realized just how the majority of Italian and German people went along with what their goverments did in the late 30's
No you are not, but that is a far cry from making a drug illegal. There are some good arguments on both sides, but that statement is far from a good argument. I'd leave that one out of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Haha, that thought nagged at my brain part way down the last page, but Bien's right in that it is somewhat hyperbolic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Lokasenna,Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
I would be surprised if someone else hasn't mentioned this (I am not going to read hundreds of posts on this issue but was struck by your comments), but have you considered that the late teens and early twenties is a common age for the onset of schizophrenic symptoms with or without drug use? Given the family history, is there some special reason you believe there is a causal connection between the onset of the disease and the marijuana use? Couldn't this just be a fortuitous correlation?
You seem unable to understand a simple statement of fact. I'll repeat it:Quote:
Haha, suuuuure... Britain: home of the world's only honorable politicians.
Laws are drafted by the government's lawyers.
I did not say that there aren't lobbyists in the UK but they do not draft laws.
In any case, if their influence was that strong, the tobacco companies would be queuing up to promote legalisation of cannabis for the reasons that Neely has rightly stated.
If the government gave the green light on cannabis and made it available for general use in the UK tomorrow, then yes there would be a massive boom in consumption of the stuff. This irresponsible act would be akin to encouraging drug use, absolutely.Quote:
That's not "encouraging" use, that's simply commerce. Do they "encourage" you to buy string cheese? I bet you could pick up a can at Tesco. It's your choice whether to buy it or not (as it should be).
Yes drinking and smoking (I don’t smoke) causes massive problems for society which is why I don’t think it is a good idea to introduce a third in cannabis, which may also lead onto harder drugs too.Quote:
Buy why? Isn't it "damaging to your health?" Doesn't drinking cause problems for society? What value is there in it? (besides that wishy-washy "one glass of red wine a day" argument)
It’s hard luck ultimately. It is because alcohol and tobacco (especially alcohol as the vast majority of people in the UK drink) are so imbedded in the culture here and cannabis isn’t.Quote:
Basically, why should you be allowed to indulge YOUR drug of choice, but if I indulge mine, I could get sent to prison for fourteen years? Where's the justice in that?
I’m not pushing for anything I’m merely going about my business. Though if I were an angst teen at the moment I would be pushing for far more important things, like university fees, education cuts, healthcare reforms, youth unemployment, state pension age, etc, etc, though there would be little point anyway, ultimately.Quote:
Marijuana is just better, no hangovers, no vomiting, no violence, no headaches, no loss of inhibition (aka. slutty drunk people), no passing out, you can't OD and the addiction factor is practically nil. There's absolutely no sane reason why a person should be sent to prison for over a decate for having a joint on them. If you can't see that, then I simply don't understand your point of view. What you seem to be saying is "it's smelly." So... okay then. You're pushing for social stagnation and promoting a nanny state, which doesn't bother me as much because you're not in my country, but I still don't get it.
As far as I’m aware in the UK it might as well be a fringe idea. This might be because I’m ‘out of the loop’ with the whole debate, because I don’t have much interest in it, or it could genuinely be because it is a fringe argument here. I know that the current position is ‘no way’ though, so that suits me fine.Quote:
Also, it sounds like you're trying to make it seem like this is all some fringe idea. According to an impartial poll, the majority of Canadian adults believe that marijuana should be officially legal. We do live in a democratic country, and government efforts to influence the views of the general public on this issue have failed miserably, so I think the law will change (as laws often do - I can't believe I have to say that, but apparently I do). Americans smoke a lot of marijuana too, and they're very liberal in terms of the stuff (even though they could go to prison for it, for some profoundly stupid reason). I'd say they're not far behind us.
In most cases yes, in this case yes.Quote:
Do you seriously believe that the law always equalls justice?
I don’t know, strange question, but I wouldn’t think like that. I would see if you looked like I imagined and be interested in the background view of Amsterdam, that's all probably.Quote:
Anyway, if I posted pictures of me smoking weed in a caffe in amsterdma, would you view it more or less like you posting pictures of you with a beer in a pub, or would you view the former as ilicit behavior and the latter as normal behavior?
I will respond to the original intent of your post. I have found occasional marijuana use to be helpful in the composition of music. This is probably not due to the enhancement of creative faculties or to any specific effect of the drug itself, but merely to the change in perspective it affords. You see, sometimes, after hearing the same themes and ideas over and over again it becomes impossible to hear them objectively or to adopt a purely aesthetic stance toward them—that is, to hear them afresh as a listener might rather than as a craftsman. I have found that being able to step out of the latter role and to hear my work from the outside, as it were, opens up my thought processes. After a few tokes it sometimes happens that a passage that has stumped me all week, one for which I can't conceive a satisfying continuation, suddenly completes itself in my imagination as if it is playing itself. When this happens the drug also seems to help in focusing rapt concentration on the problem of capturing what I have heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywalt
Wow, are the Nons really resorting to the "gateway drug" argument? Smells of desperation.
Normally I bow out of threads when the banter starts getting rather personal, but I'll duck back in for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
We cannot discount the possibility that my cousin's debilitation is entirely genetic, though according to her doctors and carers this is unlikely. In all probablity, her heavy marijuana use served to grossly exacerbate the underlying psychological problems - the timing matches perfectly (though I'll concede it is possible, though not probable, that it could be coincidenc) and my cousin's illness is amongst the worst in our family. Though we cannot know for 100% certain (as the pro-cannabis lobby so often points out) that drugs are to blame, I cannot help feeling that the circumstantial evidence is weighty.
I don't understand. You admit that marijuana being illegal and alcohol being legal is just bad luck for the stoners, but then you say that the illegality of marijuana is just? How is it just? From what I can gather your position is a pragmatic one. You think marijuana being legal would be bad for society. I hope you are not arguing that it would be worse than alcohol, because that would be absurd. Maybe its practical, but its certainly, definitely, 100 percent no-doubt-about-it not just.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Again, this is naive. In America lobbyists openly draft legislation. In Great Britain they influence legislation. A legislator has two primary concerns. One is to placate the voters and facilitate re-election. The other is to satisfy the interests of the corporations or perhaps to a lesser degree the unions who helped finance their election. The second of these two concerns has little to do with justice or democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Anyway. This is kind of off topic I suppose.
Yes I agree that in the USA lobbyists do sometimes draft legislation. A case in point being Henry Paulson who as a former chief executive of Goldman Sachs became Secretary of State to the US treasury and was openly instrumental in drafting legislation favouring that organisation; not to mention Dick Cheney and Halliburton. However, compare that to the recent scandal in the UK whereby the Secretary of State for Defence, Liam Fox, was forced to resign over his links to a lobbyist for defence contracts. Lobbying in the UK is subject to the eagle eye of the press and it's not so easy to achieve its objectives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88