Legal Marijuana

[JuniperWoolf]

Methinks the young lady doth protest too much.

Methinks Emil doth seek attention. I'm starting to seriously think that these poorly-constructed jibes from the sidelines are simply how you get your rocks off. Still, you're not very good at it, so there's no harm in it I suppose - although you do continuously detract from the topic of discussion.

For nations (the E.U and America) that relish and use the word Freedom so often, I am astounded by how suprisingly litttle our general populations know of what actual freedom is.

Yeah, I agree completely. I used to get into all sorts of debates about the definition of "freedom." I don't get why, it seems like a very straightforward concept to me.

[Emil Miller]

Ok I knew I said adieu to this conversation but --- seriously emil?

Maybe that is why you critisize so much democracy, because you actualy don't get it?

For nations (the E.U and America) that relish and use the word Freedom so often, I am astounded by how suprisingly litttle our general populations know of what actual freedom is.

My criticism isn't aimed at democracy but at 'liberal democracy' which leads to people breaking the laws drawn up by their elected representatives after due consultation with those who have the available information on the subject.

[My2cents]

The fact that it isn't illegal to possess and use pot in California so long as you have a doctor's authorization is a concession by the Federal Gov't that pot's Schedule 1 status, that pot is addictive and has no medicinal value, is somewhat dubious. I don't know how else you read that.

Which means, that the issue has to be economic and cultural. Science has little to do with it, IMO.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Ten pages before Emil had to throw that dirty word "liberal" in there. A new record?

[Emil Miller]

Ten pages before Emil had to throw that dirty word "liberal" in there. A new record?

Unfortunately there are those who don't know the difference between liberty and license.

[Alexander III]

My criticism isn't aimed at democracy but at 'liberal democracy' which leads to people breaking the laws drawn up by their elected representatives after due consultation with those who have the available information on the subject.

So were we born a hundred years ago, you would be the man sending me a white feather in the mail, because I refused to die for king and country?

[Darcy88]

In democratic countries, governments and their advisers decide what is going to be legal or illegal. Once a law has passed onto the statute, it remains until it is changed. If someone disagrees with it they are duty bound to obey it until it is repealed. It's the basis of western civilisation, without which, all our freedoms would be undermined.

No, that line of reasoning does not hold, for then you'd be required to obey any law, no matter how unjust, and we know that governments pass unjust laws all the time. A man is entitled to act in accordance with his conscience, nothing else. If obeying an unjust law makes no impact on one's life, then sure, go ahead and submit. But people really enjoy marijuana, its a prominent part of my nation's culture, and as Juniper illustrated with that graph - the drug is as harmless as caffeine 99 percent of the time.

[Darcy88]

Since it isn't illegal here, the police don't turn too heavy an eye on the growers so we buy from people we know (haha, one of the ladies who sells it in town owns a flower shop and grows weed in her greenhouses)

Damn. Here they be having helicopters flying all around. They check the hydro-meter. If you get caught with a significant amount you go to jail.

Wikipedia says that its cultivation is currently illegal in Canada and it says the overall legal status of marijuana is in dispute.

[smerdyakov]

I think the neo-cons have beat a hasty retreat Now pass that over here....

[tonywalt]

Damn, you pro-marijuana people sure are robust and forceful in argument, rather than lethargic. Damn, "Reefer Madness" was wrong!

[Paulclem]

I don't think so, it's not a "forbidden fruit" here, we smoke it because we like it. The stigma that seems to be attached to marijuana in the UK isn't the same as in Canada, neither are considered "drugs." People who drink at parties and smoke on weekends don't usually think to themselves "whelp, guess it's heroin next."
:

I think the attitudes to Cannabis are probably the same here as Canada. Smokers in the past - when I was out and about-had much the same attitude, and use is more widespread now.

What I meant by forbidden fruit is the initial attraction - but not just cannabis, but harder drugs too. I'm thinking of younger people than you - kids - later teens, who are perhaps more impetuous/ less informed.

People who drink at parties and smoke on weekends don't usually think to themselves "whelp, guess it's heroin next."

The fact is that drug use opens circles of people to each other. My experience is that once you start, you naturally come into contact with people who smoke and can offer you other stuff. There's nothing mysterious about it, and it doesn't remove choice, but it is there and it is an influence.

Where advertising in the past has gone wrong is again to demonise users/ drug use. When you meet ordinary people who are fine, and who have experience of these things, it can have a powerful effect in contrast to the expectations engendered by popuar perceptions. I met nice, interesting people. With little experience, it is very easy to equate "nice" and "interesting" with right.

When I look back, I see these egotistical people revelling in their "experience" and doling out cod advice and spouting product descriptions as well as any car salesman, when in actual fact they knew little. There was also an odd transitoryness to those relationships, which now makes me question the nature of the friendships that arose out of them. One of the reasons I'd suport legalisation is to get rid of these self appointed experts, who actually have no interest in the well being of the people they deal with. (I'm not talking about friendships that have arisen in the usual way, but these drug circle friendships).

[Darcy88]

My criticism isn't aimed at democracy but at 'liberal democracy' which leads to people breaking the laws drawn up by their elected representatives after due consultation with those who have the available information on the subject.

Laws are influenced by lobbyists and very often drafted by those lobbyists. Your description comes across as incredibly naive.

[LitNetIsGreat]

As I thought cannabis has recently moved up a category in fear that the government were sending out the wrong message regarding this smelly drug.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7845023.stm

On 29th January 2004, cannabis had been reclassified from a Class B to a Class C drug in the UK, but as of Jan 26th 2009, it was reclassified it back to Class B.

NOW: CLASS B CANNABIS
Illegal.
If you are under 18, you will be arrested and given a formal warning.
Up to 5 years in jail for possession
Up to 14 years in jail for supplying or dealing

Before: CLASS C CANNABIS
It's still illegal
If you are under 18, you will be arrested and given a formal warning
Up to 2 years in jail for possession
Up to 14 years in jail for supplying or dealing

I'm just for consistency. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, why not pot? I've seen no rational argument here again it being legalized (I may have missed something). Alcohol and tobacco have been a part of cultures for thousands of year while pot hasn't. So? What does that even matter?

It matters simply because alcohol and tobacco have legal status and cannabis doesn’t. It is quite possible, even likely, that that tobacco would not be legal given what we know about it now. This just highlights the dangers of legalisation. For once the door is open that’s that.

I also offered to provide evidence. Want some?

It's safer:...

It ultimately doesn’t matter, if it is safer, it is still a drug and no sensible person/government minister is going to open it up and encourage people to smoke it, no matter how safe people claim it is.

If the government here have reclassified the drug in order to send out a more powerful message, which in my opinion is the right decision, then why on earth are they likely to legalise it completely, for what sort of line does that take on other drugs too?

Besides there are plenty of contrasting reports on cannabis. Here's a segment from the BBC Health page:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/emotiona...cannabis.shtml

Risks of cannabis

There's increasing evidence that cannabis use is linked to a number of health risks. It damages the ability to concentrate, decreases motivation and more than occasional use in teenagers can affect psychological development. Users can become anxious, suspicious and even paranoid. Heavy use increases the risk of serious psychiatric illness.

Users of skunk, a stronger and increasingly more available form of cannabis, are seven times more likely to develop a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia, than people not using cannabis or using the more traditional forms. Cannabis also interferes with coordination, causing problems with balance, walking and driving.

There are other side effects of the drug, but they vary considerably and are less predictable, partly because cannabis has more than 400 active ingredients. They may include effects on the heart, such as increased heart rate and blood pressure, and damage to fertility. People who smoke cannabis are also exposed to the toxic chemicals in tobacco smoke.

People may become dependent on cannabis and find it difficult to stop using it, experiencing unpleasant withdrawal symptoms if they do stop such as cravings, agitation, mood changes, sleep problems, appetite disturbance and other symptoms.

Not something the health secretary is going to push forward.

I think the neo-cons have beat a hasty retreat Now pass that over here....

Neo-con, if you would believe it I do work sometimes too, I can't just sit around all day like you potheads smoking dope and surfing litnet!

[Emil Miller]

No, that line of reasoning does not hold, for then you'd be required to obey any law, no matter how unjust, and we know that governments pass unjust laws all the time. A man is entitled to act in accordance with his conscience, nothing else. If obeying an unjust law makes no impact on one's life, then sure, go ahead and submit. But people really enjoy marijuana, its a prominent part of my nation's culture, and as Juniper illustrated with that graph - the drug is as harmless as caffeine 99 percent of the time.

Which governments are you referring to? Here in the UK, laws have to receive a majority vote in parliament before they can be enacted so there is nothing unjust about it. While some teenagers of various ages may take cannabis, it is not a major part of the UK's culture and I don't see the medical advisers to the government recommending something that will merely exacerbate a problem with smoking that they have successfully been campaigning against for decades.

Laws are influenced by lobbyists and very often drafted by those lobbyists. Your description comes across as incredibly naive.

No, laws are drafted by the government's lawyers regardless of lobbyists. The situation might be different in other countries but not here.
If you are interested, you might do well to read my book, it will tell you a good deal about the way politics and the law operated in the UK up until the last Labour government that made certain structural changes to the legal system.

[JuniperWoolf]

Damn. Here they be having helicopters flying all around. They check the hydro-meter. If you get caught with a significant amount you go to jail.

I've read about how they've been quite humourless on the BC coast (even though it grows wild in many places). Apparently, most of the Canadian weed in the United States was traced back to BC. Political pressure, blah blah blah.

Wikipedia says that its cultivation is currently illegal in Canada and it says the overall legal status of marijuana is in dispute.

It's been f'ing "in dispute" for like, ten years now. People don't even know what's legal and what isn't, and the legality of certain actions vary from province to province. What a clown show.

It ultimately doesn’t matter, if it is safer, it is still a drug and no sensible person/government minister is going to open it up and encourage people to smoke it, no matter how safe people claim it is.

No one said anything about "encouraging" people to do anything (except for when you said that the gov't should "encourage" people not to smoke, which is comparable). You never answered my question, by the way - do you drink?

No, laws are drafted by the government's lawyers regardless of lobbyists. The situation might be different in other countries but not here.

Haha, suuuuure... Britain: home of the world's only honorable politicians.