Marijuana legalisation

[Humodour]

So what's your solution? Having them in every 24/7 shop next to regular cigarettes?

 

It is illegal to advertise cigarettes in any way in Australia. You can't put ads for them on TV, you can't put your brand on the packaging, you can't change the colours of the packaging (olive green - the colour smokers hate most here apparently), you can't advertise discounts for them in shop, you can't display them in shops (they're stored under the counter and have to be specifically asked for by the customer). Cigarette packets also come with gruesome health warnings accompanied by gruesome pictures. Cigarettes are also highly taxed.

 

But cigarettes themselves are still legal.

 

So to answer your question: yeah, why not put them next to cigarettes in shops. Sounds good.

[Hurlshort]

For the record, I also am talking more about decriminalization than making everything legal.

[Humodour]

For the record, I also am talking more about decriminalization than making everything legal.

 

I believe all drug use should be decriminalised and treated as a health issue at the least LEAST. But also marijuana specifically needs to be legalised.

 

The debate about the other drugs can happen after these two things occur.

[Humodour]

The UN now supports drug legalisation.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/artic...jectid=10730196

[Walsingham]

The basic problem architecture is pretty simple. Humans want to get high. 'Period', as you colonials say. Getting high involves poisoning the brain. You can poison the brain with almost anything. But whatever you use it's likely to be quite limited in volume. Low volume combined with multiple options means you can't reliably prohibit said poisons through intervention. Ever.

 

I apologise for bringing this up again, but it ought to be a finisher. Drugs are a problem in f***ing prison. So unless someone can come up with a way of making free citizens subject to MORE control than prison then prohibition is demonstrably never going to work.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Yet you would not disagree that the problem is expanding, instead of at least - stagnating?

 

How would decriminalization help, to at least push the issue into acceptable bounds?

 

@Gorgon:

 

The hard drugs and soft drugs categorization is arbitrary and dubious, as categorizations often are. You can be heavily addicted to marijuana and likewise, use cocaine once in a blue moon.

 

The potential to heavy addiction is inherent in all drugs, although psychedelics are commonly considered to not be truly addictive due to the intensity of the experience.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[Gorgon]

Well it's pretty obvious that all drugs are not the same, not equally dangerous. I also don't think you can be addicted to cannabis at all. You can be addicted to a certain lifestyle, or it can function like a psychological band aid, as cigarettes often do, but there are no withdrawal symptoms. Coffee on the other hand, I have to have mine or i get the shakes and a killer headache.

[Hurlshort]

Yet you would not disagree that the problem is expanding, instead of at least - stagnating?

 

Not at all, at least in the US. I'm not sure if it has expanded at all, are you really going to argue that there was less drug use in the 60's and 70's?

[Gfted1]

I think that could be easily argued due to nothing more than there being a higher population now. Also, while the hippy culture of the 70's received a lot of exposure I would be surprised if the actual number of users was very high.

[Gorgon]

Coke used to be the definition of hip. It took a drug war and the elevation of prudishness to virtue combined with the fear of violent crime during the Reagan years to change it. An actual drug war fought among other places in Miami as popularized by Miami Vice, not just a silly label.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

Yet you would not disagree that the problem is expanding, instead of at least - stagnating?

 

How would decriminalization help, to at least push the issue into acceptable bounds?

 

The problem is not the offence to one's notion of human dignity. The problem is the organised crime and terrorism which prohibition has funded to a degree literally impossible without illicit narcotics. Drugs kill, but the war on drugs (indirectly) kills so many more it's hard to even guess the figures.

 

I should also point out, as I've done before, that of the five people I've ever interviewed or known who've kicked hard drugs it was when they got access to cheap reliable drugs that they had the breathing space to realise their life had gone to ****. When they were grafting and dodging cops that took all their time and attention when they weren't high.

 

I'm not naive enough to think you wouldn't see people dying all over the damn place. But I'm cynical enough to regard the deaths of people who choose to get high as less serious than people who simply try to live in Mexico, Afghanistan, Burma etc.

[Humodour]

I'm not naive enough to think you wouldn't see people dying all over the damn place. But I'm cynical enough to regard the deaths of people who choose to get high as less serious than people who simply try to live in Mexico, Afghanistan, Burma etc.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX1CvW38cHA

[Walsingham]

I'm not naive enough to think you wouldn't see people dying all over the damn place. But I'm cynical enough to regard the deaths of people who choose to get high as less serious than people who simply try to live in Mexico, Afghanistan, Burma etc.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX1CvW38cHA

 

 

Your response to this is Bill Hicks?

 

Man, you can fantasise all you like about all the great things people will experience on drugs. But I don't think it's wise to make policy based on wishful thinking. You have to take a worst case, and assume that you are going to see more people dependant on drugs, either psychologically or physiologically. The benefits aren't going to be felt in the first world. They're going to come in producer nations like Colombia, and trans-shipment nations like Nigeria and Mexico.

[Humodour]

I'm not naive enough to think you wouldn't see people dying all over the damn place. But I'm cynical enough to regard the deaths of people who choose to get high as less serious than people who simply try to live in Mexico, Afghanistan, Burma etc.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX1CvW38cHA

 

 

Your response to this is Bill Hicks?

 

Man, you can fantasise all you like about all the great things people will experience on drugs. But I don't think it's wise to make policy based on wishful thinking. You have to take a worst case, and assume that you are going to see more people dependant on drugs, either psychologically or physiologically. The benefits aren't going to be felt in the first world. They're going to come in producer nations like Colombia, and trans-shipment nations like Nigeria and Mexico.

 

Well, I disagree with that, because Portugal legalised all drugs in 2001 and it's now 2011 and their drug usage rates have all fallen.

 

But furthermore, no you nitwit, that wasn't my response to you - I just found it humorous because he has the same stance on deaths attributed to drugs as you do, so I linked it.

[Walsingham]

But furthermore, no you nitwit, that wasn't my response to you - I just found it humorous because he has the same stance on deaths attributed to drugs as you do, so I linked it.

 

I recognised the start of the segment, but must have been from a different gig to the one I know.

[Gorth]

Coincidentally, a similar issue arose for me in Nationstates:

 

Cannibals Demand To Taste What Gorthopia Has To Offer

 

A coalition of tribalists, health experts, and civil rights proponents have recently suggested legalizing cannibalism for consumers of willing would-be meals.

 

The Debate

 

1. "I see absolutely no problem with people digging into each other at dinnertime, so long as everyone is willing," Tobias du Pont, the editor of the monthly magazine 'To Serve Man', quips, "Not only does it solve hunger problems and create jobs, but it also adds variety to Gorthopia's sometimes dull palette."

 

2. Civil rights leader Billy Shiomi came out publicly for moderate pro-cannibalism legislation, commenting, "While it may strike some as a crude, even evil practice, our ancestors have practiced cannibalism for years. If we create a government organization to strictly regulate and grade all human meat prior to its arrival on the market, we can ensure that respect for diversity is maintained while health concerns are also allayed. And instead of killing average people, why not make being turned into snack foods a post-mortem option? Like donating your body to science!"

 

3. "You're all absolutely out of your minds!" exclaims Pete Longbottom, head of Gorthopia's largest health-food manufacturer. "It's immoral, it's unhealthy, and it's disgusting. Not only are these so-called 'dietary rights' activists leading us down a dark path of sin, but right into a marketplace with yet another product that's almost as bad as beef!"

I'll legalize cannibalism and see what happens >_

[Humodour]

Hahahahahahahahaha.