Impressed Holy shit, America in forward thinking shocker

[old.Tohtori]

Like i said before, try stop using sugar and you'll notice you're addicted to it

People are addicted, every single one. This makes the government money(the people in the end) that would otherwise go to "criminals".

 

[soze]

Well, you clearly know that's shit.

Poverty and drug use do not go hand in hand. Humans and drug use do. Plenty of rich people are habitual drug users, casual drug users, absolutely fine and happy drug users and fucked and broken drug users.

No one cares about functioning drug users though do they? Your execs with a £500 cocaine habit who pay for it with wages and still go to work every day are not the people who worry society. Yes they still get drug dealers rich but they do not steal to support the habit and they don't tend to leave needles hanging about all over the place.

 

[Job]

In the middle ages of Britain it was quite common for mass paries to break out...mainly the workers would down tools and go on drinking benders that lasted for weeks..it was total debauchery and all normal civilised rules broke down..it was termed raving and thats the origin of the word we use today.

 

[Embattle]

It like nearly every drug in existence is generally better not to do than do, plus quite frankly it utterly stinks and to me the users seem slow and dopey when on it. It should remain as is in terms of its legal status, for many reasons all of which I'm fairly sure I've stated in previous topics as have others.

 

[Raven]

Drunk people seem to slur their words and fall over a lot, they stink of booze too.

If weed was made legal you wouldn't find the bloke serving you in Tesco turns up for work wasted, same with alcohol...they would be fired.

Why should your personal preferences effect what other people can and can't do in their own home?

 

[Talivar]

My GF gave up smoking on a whim and found it very easy, but that doesn't mean smoking isn't addictive. Too many people here seem to be basing everything on their own experience of the drug.

 

[MYstIC G]

Why should your personal preferences effect what other people can and can't do in their own home?

Because people pay no attention to the effects their actions have on others. I'll come back to the other stuff later but someone in my flats smokes weed (didn't live there when we bought before some smart arse says "you should have bought somewhere else") and everyone who's come to our place since says the halls absolutely fucking reek of the stuff.

Now, you want to do what you want in your own home, fine, I'm all for that, but are you going to pay to put in the expensive air filtration system so I don't have to smell your shit? I highly fucking doubt it.

 

[Raven]

So because someone smokes it in a flat and it has a unpleasant smell (to some) it should be illegal? What about Indian or Chinese food? I lived in a flat once where the Indian family cooked food a lot, stank all the time (I liked the smell personally but plenty of visitors didn't)

What about me who lives in a detached house? What are the reasons I shouldn't a be allowed to smoke weed?

 

[MYstIC G]

So because someone smokes it in a flat and it has a unpleasant smell (to some) it should be illegal? What about Indian or Chinese food? I lived in a flat once where the Indian family cooked food a lot, stank all the time (I liked the smell personally but plenty of visitors didn't)

What about me who lives in a detached house? What are the reasons I shouldn't a be allowed to smoke weed?

Those questions are so retarded, Toht may as well have posted them. I didn't say you shouldn't smoke weed, since you're clearly too fucking daft to pay attention I'll put it in bold for you:

Now, you want to do what you want in your own home, fine, I'm all for that

Your house being detached doesn't answer my question either by the way. Question with a question, you should try out for your local labour/tory/etc party.

 

[Raven]

No they aren't. You say it should remain illegal because of the smell. I said other things smell too.

I know plenty of people who smoke weed and are perfectly respectable people. Its like booze, people who drink don't drink all the time. What possible effect on others is there if I have a smoke in front of match of the day on a Saturday evening...none whatsoever.

People who smoke it from morning to bedtime have a problem, sure. But so do people who start drinking when they get up.

...and in your case so do Indian families that start cooking dinner in the morning.

 

[MYstIC G]

No they aren't. You say it should remain illegal because of the smell. I said other things smell too.

I know plenty of people who smoke weed and are perfectly respectable people. Its like booze, people who drink don't drink all the time. What possible effect on others is there if I have a smoke in front of match of the day on a Saturday evening...none whatsoever.

People who smoke it from morning to bedtime have a problem, sure. But so do people who start drinking when they get up.

No, I said it stinks. You need to learn to read instead of read between the lines. My actual points are that it's morally reprehensible to fund education off the back of taxing a narcotic (i.e. we should fucking fund education anyway) and that people don't take responsibility for their actions. Just because you hold yourself and those in your circle to be good little boys and girls doesn't mean that everyone else will behave in the same manner. Again you've evaded the question posed. You'd be happy to shoulder the burden or air filtration equipment for your home so that those who do not wish to share in your pass time would be insulated against its effects, no?

Oh and respectable does not equal responsible.

 

[Raven]

well for a start I would rather the revenue generated by weed went to the tax system than buying drug dealers nice cars but whatever. You seem to have got your idea about what cannabis is from the Daily Mail. Despite what the Daily Mail and co think or say, weed consumption will never stop, the same way alcohol consumption will never stop. The police and government have wasted billions trying to stop it, money better spent elsewhere (On education for example!)

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Alcohol is far more nasty, it destroys families, it is abused by millions, it kills hundreds of thousands a year...but I assume you are happy for tax from that to go on education...or?

And responsible in what way? They pay their taxes, they work, they don't break any laws (except the retarded one saying they can't have a smoke) Their smoking weed does not effect anyone at all.

Like I said, lots of things stink, weed, spicy cooking, vehicle fumes, generally smelly people etc. Nobody ever suggests air filtration systems for them... Also, not all weed smells and not all ways of consuming it produce a smell, for example cooking it, drinking it in tea, vaporising it etc etc.

 

[rynnor]

Maybe the question should be: Why would you want to?

What the fuck is wrong with doing what humans have been wanting to do for a long long time? Drug use is almost as ubiquitous as sex amongst humans and has been throughout history.

It's a ridiculous moral outrage issue that shouldn't exist. We should be looking at ways of making them safer to take - not ways of stopping normal and extremely pleasurable behaviour happening.

Its artificial pleasure from an external source - its not real and is an inward bound dead end. I look forward to the day when all of it is gone - we don't need it - life is full of interest and pleasures.

It's a symptom of people being stuck in dead ends - the real fix is to get people to where they don't desire the stuff because their lives are rich and fulfilling.

 

[rynnor]

Really? How?

By getting rid of cash - once all payments are electronic and traceable there's no place for the dealers to hide - if anyone desired it they could grab the whole lot of them and their backers overnight.

 

[MYstIC G]

well for a start I would rather the revenue generated by weed went to the tax system than buying drug dealers nice cars but whatever. You seem to have got your idea about what cannabis is from the Daily Mail. Despite what the Daily Mail and co think or say, weed consumption will never stop, the same way alcohol consumption will never stop. The police and government have wasted billions trying to stop it, money better spent elsewhere (On education for example!)

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Alcohol is far more nasty, it destroys families, it is abused by millions, it kills hundreds of thousands a year...but I assume you are happy for tax from that to go on education...or?

And responsible in what way? They pay their taxes, they work, they don't break any laws (except the retarded one saying they can't have a smoke) Their smoking weed does not effect anyone at all.

Like I said, lots of things stink, weed, spicy cooking, vehicle fumes, generally smelly people etc. Nobody ever suggests air filtration systems for them... Also, not all weed smells and not all ways of consuming it produce a smell, for example cooking it, drinking it in tea, vaporising it etc etc.

Nice try at associating me with the Daily Mail, I can't stand the fucking lower than used toiler paper rag, but carry on shit flinging to try and point score, eh?

Who said anything about consumption stopping. Did you consider that alcohol might be "far more nasty" because its more widely available, more widely consumed and more socially accepted? Perhaps if it wasn't those problems wouldn't exist (please note the word perhaps and that I'm not suggesting prohibition before you rant off again). No I'm not happy for the tax from that to go on education either, it's just as morally reprehensible but I'm a realist, that's not going to change any time soon because it is the status quo, just like fuel duty. Doesn't mean I agree with it, k?

Just because all forms of weed usage don't perpetuate an odour, doesn't negate my question. Your points are again mute because decent kitchens should have a basic filtration or extraction system of some form in them for all cooking (btw none spicy cooking can stink as well, try frying some bacon). Commercially it's usually a requirement.

Frankly Raven you really should go for being a politician, that's like the third time you've avoided the question completely. Your definition of insanity is accurate though so I won't be wasting any further time asking you again.

 

[DaGaffer]

By getting rid of cash - once all payments are electronic and traceable there's no place for the dealers to hide - if anyone desired it they could grab the whole lot of them and their backers overnight.

Bitcoin. Next. I'm being a bit facetious, but there will be ways to deal with the advent of a cashless society for the nefarious. Money-laundering is an ancient art.

 

[Embattle]

Drunk people seem to slur their words and fall over a lot, they stink of booze too.

I don't drink and I find it generally stupid it as well especially the recent increase in purposeful binge drinking by younger people thinking they are immune to the risks. What I've always found ironic is how the weed brigade love to reference the two legal drugs in the for some sort of support because they believe they are worse and thus weed would be fine, to me this argument has always had a few fatal flaws in that it shows that weeds usage could explode if made legal since that tends to be the trend for making something legal. It also has a second fatal flaw that doesn't acknowledge what the initially thought about cigarettes, that they were actually healthy in some way but we now know this is utter rubbish and the effect on health is devastating over time which personally I think will end up being the result of weed as well....before any one chimes in about various health studies supporting or disproving the health effects they've all generally been small or limited.

If weed was made legal you wouldn't find the bloke serving you in Tesco turns up for work wasted, same with alcohol...they would be fired.

I do believe in most work places you can already be sent home under the guise of not being fit for work, what the cause of you not being fit for work isn't generally required.

Why should your personal preferences effect what other people can and can't do in their own home?

I'm not sure I even need to actually reply to this, I'll give it a little time to let you think what you've in essence implied with such a remark regarding something being illegal and how your house some how makes you immune from the law.

I view most of these drugs as things people shouldn't do but realise that people do them, at a time when the government is making more efforts to reduce things like smoking and will eventually have to seriously look at taking more action regarding alcohol the idea of making another drug legal just doesn't make much sense even if people try to justify it via the tax argument. The government should basically keep it as is so that those that do it in private basically aren't likely to risk much punishment but at the same time they should step up the effort in research while also educating people more.

 

[Raven]

Nice try at associating me with the Daily Mail, I can't stand the fucking lower than used toiler paper rag, but carry on shit flinging to try and point score, eh?

Who said anything about consumption stopping. Did you consider that alcohol might be "far more nasty" because its more widely available, more widely consumed and more socially accepted? Perhaps if it wasn't those problems wouldn't exist (please note the word perhaps and that I'm not suggesting prohibition before you rant off again). No I'm not happy for the tax from that to go on education either, it's just as morally reprehensible but I'm a realist, that's not going to change any time soon because it is the status quo, just like fuel duty. Doesn't mean I agree with it, k?

Just because all forms of weed usage don't perpetuate an odour, doesn't negate my question. Your points are again mute because decent kitchens should have a basic filtration or extraction system of some form in them for all cooking (btw none spicy cooking can stink as well, try frying some bacon). Commercially it's usually a requirement.

Frankly Raven you really should go for being a politician, that's like the third time you've avoided the question completely. Your definition of insanity is accurate though so I won't be wasting any further time asking you again.

I thought your point was that people don't care what effect their actions had on others. My answer to yours in no effect whatsoever. I asked, what effect does my having a joint in front of match of the day have on anyone? You are the one refusing to answer the question.

Your whole example of why it should not be allowed is some unsociable person in your block of flats, smoking copious amounts of weed, that is not the same as someone who has a little every now and again. You might as well pick some tramp off the street having special brew for breakfast and use him as an example of someone who has a glass of wine with their dinner.

 

[DaGaffer]

Who said anything about consumption stopping. Did you consider that alcohol might be "far more nasty" because its more widely available, more widely consumed and more socially accepted?

Yes, and...no. Alcohol is "far more nasty" in absolute terms. Ethanol is a more damaging poison. I take your point about social acceptance, but that's the nub of the debate isn't it? Why shouldn't people be free to imbibe whatever the hell they like?

Perhaps if it wasn't those problems wouldn't exist (please note the word perhaps and that I'm not suggesting prohibition before you rant off again). No I'm not happy for the tax from that to go on education either, it's just as morally reprehensible but I'm a realist, that's not going to change any time soon because it is the status quo, just like fuel duty. Doesn't mean I agree with it, k?

I really don't understand your problem here. Is it the fact that in the case of Colorado they've specifically said the money raised will go on schools, or is it a general "taxing stuff that's bad and using it for good is...bad" argument? Because I'm not sure what your alternative would be.

Just because all forms of weed usage don't perpetuate an odour, doesn't negate my question. Your points are again mute because decent kitchens should have a basic filtration or extraction system of some form in them for all cooking (btw none spicy cooking can stink as well, try frying some bacon). Commercially it's usually a requirement.

Frankly Raven you really should go for being a politician, that's like the third time you've avoided the question completely. Your definition of insanity is accurate though so I won't be wasting any further time asking you again.

Sorry, what was the question here? Is it "why should I have to put up with the smell"? Well the answer to that is, you don't. There are plenty of public health regulations that mean if someone is making a nuisance, be it noise, appearance OR smell, you have an avenue for redress. If weed was legal and someone was stinking out your flat with it you could complain to the Environmental Health people. And its "moot".

 

[rynnor]

Bitcoin. Next. I'm being a bit facetious, but there will be ways to deal with the advent of a cashless society for the nefarious. Money-laundering is an ancient art.

Bitcoin will get shut down at some point and all other forms of money laundering are getting increasingly obvious.

With the political will its quite possible to smash it - it's largely tolerated but thats changing as Al qaeda and others are using it for funds.

 

[Raven]

I don't drink and I find it generally stupid it as well especially the recent increase in purposeful binge drinking by younger people thinking they are immune to the risks. What I've always found ironic is how the weed brigade love to reference the two legal drugs in the for some sort of support because they believe they are worse and thus weed would be fine, to me this argument has always had a few fatal flaws in that it shows that weeds usage could explode if made legal since that tends to be the trend for making something legal. It also has a second fatal flaw that doesn't acknowledge what the initially thought about cigarettes, that they were actually healthy in some way but we now know this is utter rubbish and the effect on health is devastating over time which personally I think will end up being the result of weed as well....before any one chimes in about various health studies supporting or disproving the health effects they've all generally been small or limited.

I quite agree, far too many people abuse alcohol and don't know or are unwilling to stop when they have had enough but for the most part it is fine. I have never seen the attraction of drinking until you are sick or can't stand up...whats the point? That's not to say I don't enjoy having a few drinks at the weekend.

And for the record I don't smoke weed and haven't done for about 5 years - I shared a joint while camping a couple of years ago but that doesn't really count!

The simple fact is that we waste a huge amount of money trying to stop something that happens any way and except for the odd rare event is totally harmless. At the same time the huge amount of money generated by the industry goes to "wronguns" when it could be going towards job creation, taxes etc. I will pretty much agree that some of the strong strains available will fuck you up but then so will drinking meths, they should certainly remain illegal.

 

[DaGaffer]

Bitcoin will get shut down at some point and all other forms of money laundering are getting increasingly obvious.

With the political will its quite possible to smash it - it's largely tolerated but thats changing as Al qaeda and others are using it for funds.

Like I said, I was being facetious. But if you want to look to other alternatives; look back to China in the days of the Opium Wars; people basically sold themselves to their dealers as indentured workers. There are always ways to get value even without actual money. And I have to say I don't think physical money is going to disappear anyway - in too many countries the public would have a right to vote on it (like most European states with a constitution), and given the increasingly lack of trust in banks to actually give you your own money on your own terms (hello RBS) I don't think many people would vote for an end to cash. And as long as cash exists somewhere, then even if your own country went cashless, a currency to use exists.

 

[MYstIC G]

I thought your point was that people don't care what effect their actions had on others. My answer to yours in no effect whatsoever. I asked, what effect does my having a joint in front of match of the day have on anyone? You are the one refusing to answer the question.

Your whole example of why it should not be allowed is some unsociable person in your block of flats, smoking copious amounts of weed, that is not the same as someone who has a little every now and again. You might as well pick some tramp off the street having special brew for breakfast and use him as an example of someone who has a glass of wine with their dinner.

That's your assessment of my posts and it is an incorrect one.

Yes, and...no. Alcohol is "far more nasty" in absolute terms. Ethanol is a more damaging poison. I take your point about social acceptance, but that's the nub of the debate isn't it? Why shouldn't people be free to imbibe whatever the hell they like?

I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm saying that in my opinion it is only right and fair that people who wish to use understand that they don't exist in isolation and it isn't just for them to say what is right and wrong and what is or is not acceptable. I've no objection to people doing what they want to do in their own homes and why should I, it's their home. I do believe however that it falls on people engaging in any activity to contain said activities to their own homes. For example, if you want to be a loud bastard, install sound proofing, etc. It should not be for others to bear the costs of other peoples activities, be they financial costs or disruptions to their lives.

I really don't understand your problem here. Is it the fact that in the case of Colorado they've specifically said the money raised will go on schools, or is it a general "taxing stuff that's bad and using it for good is...bad" argument? Because I'm not sure what your alternative would be.

I don't think we do ourselves any favours by exploiting those at the bottom. For example, they jack the tax up on cigarettes but who really suffers? I'd wager its not just the smokers but their dependants, e.g. children. Additionally as you've said yourself it can create opportunities for criminal activity. I'd also suggest that if people think that legalising weed means all the current criminal elements are going to just disappear then they're living in their own fantasy world. We need a better, more workable solution. I'm not saying I have it before you ask.

Sorry, what was the question here? Is it "why should I have to put up with the smell"? Well the answer to that is, you don't. There are plenty of public health regulations that mean if someone is making a nuisance, be it noise, appearance OR smell, you have an avenue for redress. If weed was legal and someone was stinking out your flat with it you could complain to the Environmental Health people. And its "moot".

There wasn't one @DaGaffer save for pointing out that @Raven isn't prepared to answer a question as to whether he'd be prepared to incur financial cost if he wanted to smoke in his own home if it shielded others from his activities. I'm fully aware of the health regulations, thanks though.

 

[Raven]

I would be prepared to pay absolutely nothing...but why would I need to? There is existing legislation in place to handle problem neighbours and like I said, weed itself is not overly smelly, unless abused and doesn't even have to be smoked to be consumed, in which case you wouldn't even know about it. You seem to have this picture of weed smokers stuck in your head, bottom of society? What the hell are you talking about? Do you actually live in a bubble?

As already mentioned, if you have a problem neighbour speak to environmental health.

 

[Embattle]

The simple fact is that we waste a huge amount of money trying to stop something that happens any way and except for the odd rare event is totally harmless. At the same time the huge amount of money generated by the industry goes to "wronguns" when it could be going towards job creation, taxes etc. I will pretty much agree that some of the strong strains available will fuck you up but then so will drinking meths, they should certainly remain illegal.

I don't think you can claim about the huge amount of wasted money since the money is spent on drugs in general, weed won't often be a primary target when it comes to spending and I suspect is mostly caught when looking for other illegal activities or suspicious activity.

 

[MYstIC G]

I would be prepared to pay absolutely nothing...but why would I need to? There is existing legislation in place to handle problem neighbours and like I said, weed itself is not overly smelly, unless abused and doesn't even have to be smoked to be consumed, in which case you wouldn't even know about it. You seem to have this picture of weed smokers stuck in your head, bottom of society? What the hell are you talking about? Do you actually live in a bubble?

As already mentioned, if you have a problem neighbour speak to environmental health.

No, I don't view taxation on goods as being as big a deal to those with lined pockets as to those with empty ones. What I said wasn't limited to weed either but all substances, you have a talent for rewriting things. This isn't about my neighbours anyway. Thank you for answering the question finally, perhaps you could clarify why you do not think you would need to.

Perhaps we should take a different approach, lets use sound transmission as an example this time to take the heat out of your changing what I say. Would you agree that if someone wanted to take up playing the drums that it would be reasonable for them to ensure that their neighbours did not have to listen to them playing them?

 

[DaGaffer]

I don't think we do ourselves any favours by exploiting those at the bottom. For example, they jack the tax up on cigarettes but who really suffers? I'd wager its not just the smokers but their dependants, e.g. children. Additionally as you've said yourself it can create opportunities for criminal activity. I'd also suggest that if people think that legalising weed means all the current criminal elements are going to just disappear then they're living in their own fantasy world. We need a better, more workable solution. I'm not saying I have it before you ask.

Well first of all you're making an assumption (largely based on smoking and the current visible drug using population) that legalising weed and taxing it exploits those at the bottom. If anything it will probably exploit the middle-classes. The reason smoking exploits those at the bottom is that education has gradually induced the middle-classes to quit, leaving behind the less educated and poorer social groups. In a way high taxation was doing its job, but what's happened kind of proves you need an education and taxation approach. The middle-classes aren't necessarily going to avoid weed because of perceived health risks; if anything a lot of the media coverage is pro-the health benefits of marijuana.

I do agree that removing prohibition doesn't get rid of criminals but as I said in earlier post, the current prohibition models clearly don't work either, so its time to try something else.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Those questions are so retarded, Toht may as well have posted them.

No need for that really.

 

[MYstIC G]

Not quite, it exploits everyone, its just those at the base take the hardest hits, shit flows downhill.

I do agree that removing prohibition doesn't get rid of criminals but as I said in earlier post, the current prohibition models clearly don't work either, so its time to try something else.

Exactly, however like most things in life I don't think this option has been particularly well thought through, it simply smacks of a fiscal policy decision, i.e. it's cheaper to enforce taxation than punishment so they're now going for taxation.

 

[Scouse]

Its artificial pleasure from an external source - its not real and is an inward bound dead end.

Disagree completely.

It's very real pleasure from an external source and used responsibly is far from an inward bound dead end but instead is an occasional scream - happily augmenting physical, mental and sexual acts.

Drug abuse is an inward bound dead end. Agree there. But I can see zero problems with occasional responsible recreational drug use at all.

None. Zero. Nada.



@Olgaline - you seem to be wilfully ignorant of my argument. Of course weed has effects (some negative) on the body - without those effects there would be no point in taking it. I agree completely that in some people abuse would lead to psychological dependency. However, it's not, and nothing you've said has shown it to be, physically addictive. If I've slipped in my argument occasionally and used an incorrect word here or there - it's simply because I'm typing on a forum, not a scientific medical journal. Physical addiction is all I'm referring to.

Nicotine, caffine, opiates, - all of these carry physical withdrawal symptoms - ranging from headaches, the shakes to possible catastrophic organ failure and death.

Weed has none of this. You miss it. You may stop taking it and realise your life is a pile of shit because your abuse of that drug has left you friendless, boring and with no interest (and you turn back to it to allieviate those feelings - all of which have been largely caused by your own irresponsible abuse of the drug). But you're not going to get the DT's. You're not going to physically suffer in any way from stopping.

Weed is not physically addictive.

Clear now?