Marijuana Possession Remains Illegal, Canada's ...

[vidcc]

Originally posted by J'Pol@26 December 2003 - 02:14

There is currently a wee problem in that people see the whole drug culture as fitting into leagues (or divisions). As you probably know it doesn't really work that way.

Let me use a true example, from the North of Scotland. The kids were going to raves and taking speed, ecstacy etc - well known "uppers". When they were finished with the rave thing they wanted a "downer" to get back to normality. They looked for a bit of "blaw" to achieve that for them.

Unfortunately because of seizures there was nothing about. They had to take something so they took heroin instead. Not injecting or anything, just inhaling the fumes. This worked, however I am sure you will agree it is the start of a slippery slope.

The dealers loved it. Sorry I can't get you a wee bit of weed, but take this instead. It will do the same thing. Oh you are high just now and not thinking straight - so much the better.

There are huge differences between me buying a bottle of apple in ASDA and a 17 year old looking for some blaw at 04:00 hours on Saturday morning.

you are totally correct in your true life example of the problems with soft drugs and the dealers pushing hard drugs...which kind of stregthens what i actually wrote about it being the dealers leading to hard drugs and if the dealer contact was removed it might lessen the amount of hard drug users..removal of temptation.
it wouldn't stop it altogether, i think that would be impossible., however there is a problem and making the problem illegal doesn't seem to be solving it.
glad you enjoy my ramblings
now on a personel viewpoint...
let me make one thing absolutely clear...I AM ANTI DRUG... however i am a realist and feel that problems can never be solved by banning. If making something illegal stopped crime then we would have empty prisons.
the powers that be should be looking at ways to work with the problem instead of just saying "no you can't and i will punish you if you do".
it is possible that by making the use of these drugs a criminal offence the problem is being made worse..not saying it definatly is, just that it's possible.
drug usage is a fact of life and always will be no matter what we try to do to stop it.

[imported_el-producto]

at least in canada they're not as harsh when you get caught with a gram or so. plus they got coffeeshops. plus canada has some of the best bud in the world (bc buuuud) so what the fuck...just go buy some bud from your dealer and smoke out in your house, i wouldnt give a fuck about it becoming legal if i was in canada hahaha

[J'Pol]

The police in the UK have absolutely no interest in user quantities of cannabis. This is stated policy, they will not prosecute people for it, simply confiscate the drug. I believe that for herbal and grass it may also have been re-classified as "C".

In effect the possession and use has been de-criminalised, however the Govt hasn't got the bottle to got the whole hog. To politically sensitive.

I agree with those who take the position that it should be treated in the same way as tobacco and alcohol. However I suspect that, since a certain element of taking it is rebelliousness and youth, then people may have to find another outlet for these feelings.

[balamm]

Originally posted by vidcc@26 December 2003 - 11:05
If making something illegal stopped crime then we would have empty prisons.

Stupid, overused cliché #1

the powers that be should be looking at ways to work with the problem instead of just saying "no you can't and i will punish you if you do".

Stupid, overused cliché #2

it is possible that by making the use of these drugs a criminal offence the problem is being made worse..not saying it definatly is, just that it's possible.

Stupid, overused cliché #3

drug usage is a fact of life and always will be no matter what we try to do to stop it.

Stupid, overused cliché #4



I think J'Pol's comments might have caused an unfortunate over inflation of your ego followed by a desperate urge for more.

Well, what will you do now? You need it badly don't you?

Having your ego stroked is perfectly legal of course, but can you supply the level of witty banter needed to keep it coming?

I suspect not.

In no time, you'll be ripping off other people and claiming their witty banter as your own.

You will be caught however and exposed for being a banter thief.

The stigma of this will haunt you so badly that you will likely turn to chronic plagiarism in an attempt to escape your own reality.

And so another life is ruined, if only witty banter theft had been de-stigmatized, none of this would have happened and skies would be blue, fields green, rainbows everywhere, blah blah blah.

[J'Pol]

A bit harsh balamm, the chap seems like a decent spud.

Like I said I may not agree with the position he takes on some things, however he does post logical and coherent arguments. It is to be encouraged, this is the sort of thing we want here. People debating subjects on which they have opposing views. However doing it with logic and debate - not flaming and STFU tactics.

That is not to say it wasn't a very clever and funny post, nicely presented.

As an aside, I always love it when people speak of the low levels of certain crimes in Holland. No shit Sherlock, you stop things being illegal and there is less crime - go figure, how does that work.

That does not mean that the society is more or less moral, just that it is more liberal and as such less criminal. Less illegal things = less crime. I could have worked that out.

[balamm]

Just adding a little colorful, "look at your self", "what if", "how does it compare" ,to the debate J'Pol.

I wouldn't be me if I didn't!

I don't support the abuse of alcohol either, but runaway alcohol abuse is no excuse to minimize the effects or consequences of some other substance abuse, as so many here would promote.

Let's just continue to do what we can before marijuana abuse gets to the level of public acceptance that alcohol abuse has.

I believe it's a close race already, promoted as it is by people with little to lose, or by those without the means to understand the butterfly effect.

[clocker]

Balamm do you differentiate between use and abuse of marijuana, or no?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by balamm@27 December 2003 - 01:39
I don't support the abuse of alcohol either, but runaway alcohol abuse is no excuse  to minimize the effects or consequences of some other substance abuse, as so many here would promote.

Let's just continue to do what we can before marijuana abuse gets to the level of public acceptance that alcohol abuse has.

I believe it's a close race already, promoted as it is by people with little to lose, or by those without the means to understand the butterfly effect.

I think the point they attempt to make is a comparison of fairness and freedom of choice, rather than one of relative destructiveness.

Basically, if some people are allowed by society to abuse their drug of choice, then why shouldn't I be afforded the same right. If alcohol and tobacco are deemed acceptable (indeed taxed) then what is the difference with cannabis. I can see how this argument would be attractive to those who have the agenda of legalizing the substance.

It would seem to me that your position would be - let's not legalize this bad thing using that argument. Instead lets reduce the use of the other drugs. An equally compelling and persuasive position.

As stated previously, the British Government and Police forces have effectively de-criminalised personal use quantities. While this may not be a particularly impressive stance from the point of view of strong leadership, at least it is a practical solution.

Few people consider the butterfly effect, it makes one-issue politics too complex. So much easier to get what you want and forget the ramifications.

[clocker]

Can someone please define the "butterfly effect"?

[balamm]

Use and abuse I believe are no different in a substance that causes physical or mental impairment.
Only the level of abuse is a factor.


The butterfly effect,

somewhere in china or maybe japan, on a calm sunny day, a butterfly lifts it's wing and gently takes flight.
6 months later, half a world away, the ripple of air caused by the butterfly flapping it's wings has become the biggest hurricane of the century.

Quantum physics suggests this is possible, that something so small could change events on such a global level.