keep the masses down
Link: its coming true !
this is a link to cannabis legalisation in the uk.
that the correct link???
yes...somoa...drug to control the masses...brave new world..huxley....
i have mixed feeling on this one.
here we have zero tollarance towards all drugs.
anything abouve 10 grams and they hang them. thats it. no questions. ANY DRUGS.
i have been to amsterdam.so i have seen both sides.
as long as they dont let it go any further then personal poccession, ok. but if they allow the coffee shop style cafes of amsterdam i have to say no its wrong.
>but if they allow the coffee shop style cafes of
>amsterdam i have to say no its wrong.
Why? What's the difference between an Amsterdam Coffess shop and a bar? Apart from the fact they sell different intoxicating substances...
Steve
I'm sorry, but using the existing use of a bad thing to justify allowing the use of another bad thing is just plain daft.
And since we're slowly but surely moving to a society that outlaws smoking cigarettes in anywhere but the home - why the hell should we be allowing people to smoke an intoxicating substance in public?! Yes, second hand cigarette smoke affects your health, but it doesn't affect your mental state. Breathing in dope smoke intoxicates you, whether you do it involuntarily or not. So why the hell should I fail a random drugs test at work just because some d*ckhead thinks it's funny to smoke dope on the bus?!?
Not to mention the - rather terrifying - effects of dope on longterm mental health.
Sorry, drifted off the subject there but I'm afraid - after 'losing' too many friends thanks to their consuming nasty little plants - I cannot begin to see ANY of the thinking behind the current government moves other than almost pure, selfish arrogance.
"Not to mention the - rather terrifying - effects of dope on longterm mental health. "...we will keep the masses down your majesty...
Reaction, knee, Molcher, in, jerk, shocker (re-arrange to fit)!
You're not going to fail a drugs test because a couple of spotty twats are smoking a joint on the bus, Mikey!
That said, I agree it should be confined to your own home- but then I feel the same way about smoking in general. Why should I have to stink like shit* just for nipping into my local for five minutes to say hello to a couple of mates?
Speaking of which- how exactly have you lost your friends? I've lost somebody I used to consider a good friend because he can't get his head around the fact that I like the odd joint here and there (probably less than once a month). The last three times he's come out with me and my 'druggie mates' (his words, not mine), he's got us into trouble by getting so pissed that he a)makes passes at women- even though they are clearly attached and b)shoots his mouth off about people/situations he knows nothing about.
Amazingly, he seems to think that he's "lost a friend to drugs", when in reality it's because he's a bit of an ill informed and badly behaved twat. Drugs aren't his thing and that's fine by me- it's not for everybody- but he's an idiot if he can't see that his own behaviour is far worse than mine will ever be.
As I've said, I agree that it really should be kept at home- but at the same time, do I really deserve a criminal record- just because I've been caught buying a bit of weed?
Matt (the surprisingly tolerant).
*Obviously I end up stinking of fags- not shit. Either way, I want my clothes to smell of whatever I've washed them in...
Why is it any of the law's business what people choose to put into their own bodies? Legalise all drugs, treat it as a health rather than a moral issue, and watch the number of indigenous drug users go into free fall.
Example: heroin. Viciously addictive, dangerous, and responsible for a stunning amount of crime in the UK each year. Legal until 1967. Number of known, registered addicts in 1967: just under 2,000. Number in 2004? Unknown, but police estimates stand at 90K+
People have to be free to make their own informed choices, whereas the current situation, in which literally unbelievable propaganda from the anti-drugs lobby confuses the issue and allows drug marketers & drug pressure salesmen (translation: pushers) to convince their friends and acquaintances to try it without really thinking about it.
Not to mention the spread of dirty needles, drugs cut with unknown substances and connections with serious crime.
No, just legalise the lot, take them out of the salesmen's hands by nationalising supply, and put the supply in the hands of doctors and hospitals with access to counselling, psychiatric care, quality testing etc. Just like the Swiss, Portugese and the Dutch, we'd soon have at least a third less young people trying or being offered drugs before the age of 16.
Why the hell can't we just say "whatever works" rather than "it must be this way because it must be this way"?
Link: http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/comment/0,8146,506730,00.html
Wise band once say:
Legalise it, And i will advertise it!
Serious bit now. Smokers pay a crap load more tax than non smokers, cos of the amount of tax on a packet of fags. So why should smokers be treated as second class citizens? Most indoor public spaces are already non smoking and i think that's enough. If anyone's under the impression that they will suffer and die from breathing in harmful fumes outdoors, i suggest they stick a cork in every single exhaust pipe they see, as that would probably be more productive.
And while i'm at it...the new anti smoking campaign has not stopped me smoking. However, i can no longer go within 5 feet of a sausage roll.
One more thing.....where are my rizlas?
yours, enjoying a day off and a large doob, xTGx
And while i'm at it...the new anti smoking campaign has not stopped me smoking.
Is that the one where it looks like they're advertising cigarettes filled with spunk?
Personally I wouldnt lagalise it, decriminilisre it yes. Legalise it no. Legalising it would allow those that make profit from the sale of drugs useable....
Problem I have with this is the money being spent on explaining the down grade of cannabis. Well lets spend ?1million to tell people about the change in the law. Erm what change? Its still illegal, you can still get done for possession and supply. But the sentence might not be as a harsh. Thats hardly a change worth spending a million quid on is it?
In all honesty I have a biggger problem with fags and alchohol which cause much more misery and harm. On the subject of fags and Tax, yes you may pay more. But health care is free at point of entry, and although I dont have stats, a high number of people enter into long term health care because of fags. That costs money, a lot of taxpayers money.
Heck on a personal level my father had his first heart attack at 32 (currently the age I am now) and he had 5 more over the course of two years. Primary factor was fags. When he gave them up his heart attacks stopped..... Sure its anecdotal but its the major reason why I dont smoke.
Yer Slips
>I'm sorry, but using the existing use of a bad
>thing to justify allowing the use of another bad
>thing is just plain daft.
Hmm, I was more trying to point out that it's a bit hypocritical to say 'Alcohol's Good!' ('cause it's legal) and then say that other stuff is Bad (because it's illegal for some strange reason).
I visit the Netherlands quite often and they have a really nice society over there - it's a really nice place to visit - I admit though, I don't go to Amsterdam - which is mainly full of English tourists doing what English tourists do when they visit Amsterdam (which is not going to visit the Anne Frank house, which is really worth visiting)
I don't know anyone there (or here for that matter) who has gone off the rails due to smoking cannabis - I do know a few people who I won't go out with if there's alcohol involved though as they turn into complete arsewipes.
Oh, and you don't need to smoke it either ('cause I don't)
Steve
Personally I wouldnt lagalise it, decriminilisre it yes. Legalise it no. Legalising it would allow those that make profit from the sale of drugs useable....
Nah - decriminalisation means it stays in the hands of a network of dealers that cares nothing for the clientele and everything for increasing that clientele. Legalisation as a capital commodity would simply let the pharmaceutical companies do the same. Legalisation as a controlled substance (i.e. allowing it to be prescribed), thus banning advertising and making promotion of every type pointless and unprofitable, that's the way to go.
...Dudley
Maybe. But I remain unconvinved, the hands of pharmaceutical companies (and cigarette comapnies) are hardly blood free. Im not sure Id trust it their hands either.
But, the problem still remains why the gverment is advertising this and wasting our money in doing so. Just to clarify its position, seems more than a little odd.
Still why things like cannabis are illegal and killers like fags are legal is hypocracy of the highest order.....
Yer Slips
legalise it all and tax it...thats what milton friedman said...and he got the noble prize for economics
he said crack would not have been invented if drugs legal as no profit margin to fund the research ......
new label on booze : warning, could make you act like a tosser
As ever the late great Bill Hicks said best:
Pot, right. Aaah, they lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Liiie. When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well, you just realise, it's not worth the fucking effort.
There is a difference.
"(toke, toke, toke) Sure I can get up at dawn (toke, toke), go to a job I hate, that does not inspire me creatively whatsoever, for the rest of my fucking life.
Or I can wake up at noon and learn how to play the sitar!"
Drum roll please....
Matt agrees with Dudley shocker!
You've actually said exactly what I've thought for years. Legalise the lot. Make the only crime indulging yourself in a public place, or doing it underage (and even then- prosecute the person selling, not buying).
Give me a hundred quid and I'll come back with a hundred quid's worth of anything you like within a ridiculously short space of time. I'm not a 'geezer', I'm not 'connected'- it just really is that easy to get stuff. What's the point in trying to police it? A million people will take ecstacy this weekend. I'm not advocating it, but it's going to happen anyway. I'd rather the Police were free to catch rapists, murderers and theives than people out to enjoy themselves.
Does anybody have any idea how much crime is actually drug related? Quite a lot. Muggings, burglaries, car crime, people carrying (and using) guns. You might want to argue that we'd have a nation of drug addicts- but I don't think so. Just because you can can get legally pissed out of your head every night, is that what you actually go and do?
More importantly- the drugs sold would be pure and they would be taxable. At the moment, they are neither of these things and the only people to profit are criminals.
I'm not advocating the use of all, or indeed *any* drugs. All I'm saying is that they are there and that they won't be going away any time soon. By and large, the same people will end up taking them (let's not forget- it's either something you want to do, or something you don't want to do) and I'd no more smoke crack or shoot up if it was legal than I would now- mainly because I wouldn't want to take a drug that was instantly addictive. And I'm afraid of needles.
As for smoking in bars and wotnot- it's less the health risk and more that I don't want to stink of fags. Without wanting to be a patronising wanker- it's something you don't really notice if you're a smoker yourself. At the same time, I'm not going to start coughing and waving my arms about because my mates light up.
Agreeing with Dudley... the shame...
Decriminalisation is the worst of both worlds, allowing a market that only criminals can sell on. Its not a very good idea.
It should either be completely legal so you can buy it in Tecsos at the fag counter, or remain illegal. Anything else is unworkable.
By the way for any one wondering about the reclassification rules.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
The only difference that is in place now is how the courts deal with you. You can still be nicked for possession,the change in legislation has a specific arrest clause. So don't light up your spliff in front of a copper, it's a bad idea. And remember kids if caught in possession the difference between getting nicked and just having it go down the drain is likely to be how you respond.(this may be untrue in parts of the Met)
Mind how you go,
Jim
Re: tax on cigarettes
This is Britain - there's a tax on everything.
Price of petrol is something stupid like 80-90%...income tax...inheritance tax...Value Added Tax...council tax...TV tax...
Not beeing a smoker of either fags or joints I don't really care what it's legal status is, but I'd say: reclassify canabis equal to tobacco, outlaw smoking in public.
Prohibition of alcohol lead to the rise of organised crime in the states.
Prohibition of drugs has lead to exactly the same thing... 'bout time people realise that the war on drugs is never going to be won.
The reason that cannabis was prohibited in the first place was that it was a poor black mans drug and people feared it would stop them working hard enough...
>The reason that cannabis was prohibited in the
>first place was that it was a poor black mans
>drug and people feared it would stop them
>working hard enough...
Cheers for that, I was wondering why it got prohibited in the first place.
Steve
you are right about the bar with alcholol v the cafe with soft drugs there pyro.
i did not consider that. i was refering more to the culuture of crime that tends to be credited with the drugs scene in general. very apparent in amsterdam,
as oppossed to the extremely low crime rate in singapore where drugs in general carry the death penalty.
i was considering from my own experiences.
as of the the correct way to go.
to be honest i have to say.
DRUGS = DEATH PENALTY, it works you see.
to note.
smoking of any form in air conditioned places is completey banned in singapore. so i never go home smelling of others smoke.
>i was refering more to the culuture of crime
>that tends to be credited with the drugs scene
>in general. very apparent in amsterdam,
Didn't notice that so much. But that's probably to do with the fact that Cannabis is still technically not a legal drug in Holland, just decriminalised (which means it's illegal to deal, produce and possess, but OK for personal use and to be sold in Coffee shops). Which I assume means they still have to get it from over-the-border and smuggled in by some criminal organisation (which is one of the reasons I don't use Cannabis over here - the 8th I've bought could be going to fund some gangsters shiny new gun...). Darn it, they should legalise it so they can control its sources.
My aunt (who lives in Australia) will quite happily smoke the stuff when she's at home because she knows where it's coming from (it's grown by people who have a patch in the outback somewhere) but she won't touch it over here because of its source. She also came out with the best line at Sunday dinner - 'I don't mind the kids having a joint now and again, but when they go out on a serious drinking binge I get very worried...' Cue much jaws dropping (amongst parents/grandparents) and stifled gigglings (amongst us younger generation...)
Steve