Legalise Cannabis: The Start...

[RESiNATE]

The past couple of days has seen me in an exceptionally wierd mood.
I can't quite understand what it is that I'm going through; depression, alienation, loneliness?
Whatever.
Anyways, I've been doing alot of thinking during this time (of which unabatable wierdness continues to haunt me), and have been trying to arrive at a solution to the age old argument of wether or not Cannabis should be legalised.

All of this preamble has a point (eventually lol).

So, whilst I continue to ponder this unfathomable infringement upon civil liberty and draconianism, I thought that I might share something that I have stumbled across during my research.
It is a letter that was sent to the editor of The Times (a well respected broadsheet newspaper of the UK).

Letter to the Editor - The Times


Reforming Drug laws
John Wadham
24 May 2002


Sir

I very much support Lord Bingham's call for the legalisation of cannabis use (Times 24th May) and the Home Affairs Select Committee's proposals to liberalise the drug laws. But I would go further: the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 should be repealed. Criminalisation has failed; civil regulation is the way forward.

Branding all drug users criminals increases alienation, particularly among young people. It undermines public support for the criminal justice system; increases the level of crimes such as robbery, prostitution and burglary to fund expensive addictions; threatens privacy; has fed the growth of violent and organised crime; and labels many honest people as criminal.

Successive governments, clinging to this failed approach, have resorted to increasingly authoritarian measures. We have seen more use of intrusive policing (e.g. surveillance, telephone interception, informers); and increasingly draconian sentencing (39% of women prisoners are serving sentences for drug offences). Now the Proceeds of Crime Bill will allow the state, via the civil courts to confiscate the 'drug-related' assets of people not even convicted of drug offences.

The use of repressive laws to punish individual consumption of harmful substances is wholly disproportionate. Society accepts that individuals can choose to take part in dangerous activities, from drinking and smoking to extreme sports; the same should be true here.

The Government should decriminalise possession, use and supply of all drugs. A system of civil regulation and control would carefully, effectively regulate access to the lawful supply of drugs. Supply to minors, for example, should remain a criminal offence - but overall, people should be allowed to make their own choices.

Civil regulation and education must offer a better approach to the prevention of drug harm in a free society than prohibition.

Yours

John Wadham
Director
Liberty 21 Tabard Street London SE1 4LA
This letter is exclusive to The Times

Mr Wadham makes some very good points, I think :)

Just thought I'd share that, and the culmination of my research and reasoning will follow soon...

Res...

[RESiNATE]

The original "Misuse of Drugs Act (1971)" can be found here:
http://www.disabilityuk.com/cannabis/laws/cannabis_l3.htm

It has since been reformed, and the lateset bill that I could find is summarised here:
http://www.drugsprevention.net/drugs/?s=C&d=C2

And, this has some useful links too:
http://www.drugs.gov.uk/ReportsandPublications/Communities/1034155489?batch_start=1

[LonerStoner]

I agree completely. I've been saying the same thing for years here in the states. decriminalize, regulate, and tax. The amount of money saved on prison costs, what with 600,000 people not getting jailed for marijuana every year, would only be matched by the amount of tax dollars the government would be able to cull from MJ taxation. It's time to stop believing 50 year old racist propaganda and look at some facts for once.

*sigh, takes another illegal hit*

[poorman3]

thanks resinate, that sounded good. keep up the good work. hope you get over what ever your going through.peace.

[Junkdogg88]

I think that if we all pertisapated in "The Legalization of Cannabis Act" then we might get somewhere. If everyone sent a letter to the goverment, magazines, local newspaper, etc. stating the facts of marijuana that would be great! This next Idea might be corny but it could help. Make flyers/signs/letter that have facts about marijuana and a link of this site and other sites that having cannabis facts that would only help. Another idea is get marijuana facts put on billboards. Anyways, if you have any ideas that I left out please jump in.

[RESiNATE]

Thanks, Poorman - I'll get thru it...I usually do ;)

Listen, the thing is this:
In order to change someone's mind, you have to first understand their objection, right
Once you've understood their grievances, you can then go about trying to discredit their fears and prejudices.

What are the Governments (uk and US, in particular) worried about?
Money,
Exposure (to minors, in particular)
Insurances
Control and Regulation
Crime rate
Public support (they don't want to upset their voters, eh?)
Laws and governance
Duties (ie, taxes, etc)
Health care burden (is it fair that a toker should get free medical care, when they are 'self-inflictant'?)

It's stuff like this that will ALWAYS be thrown back at you...
But, for every attack, there is a counter-attack...and it goes both ways.

It's not just a simple case of liberty infringement - there are many things to consider.
Forget about the personal health issues, we could all produce reams and reams of evidence to support cannabis as 'unharmful'.

You have to think of arguments that will stump even the most staunch opposers.
Back those arguments up with FACTS - not OPINION.
And, most of all, it has to be financially viable and revenue-rich...lol
Money, after all, is the root of all evil, isn't it?
:D

There are plenty of folk on this site who possess the intelligence and where-with-all to offer something into the pot ('scuse the pun lol).
Let's all pull together on this, and see if we can't come up with a sensible, fact-based, proposal that cannot be reasonably defiled (<--wrong word, but you know what I mean lol).

Res...

[XTC]

Making cannabis legal is a good idea, but I doubt it would happen, and if it did it might end up spitting in our face. If it got legalized it would be controlled by the goverments. Which would probably charge the shit out of it. Plus taxes. The goverment would know that average joe would willingly pay 60 dollars and eight when it was illegal, so why not jack the prices up. Who would be their competition? Growers No. I bet if the goverment grew weed and legalized it anyone average joe growing his own stash for kicks or to make profit would be hunted down and hauled off to jail and face fines up the ass. The Goverment wouldnt want any competition

[robert42]

i agree we should all sign petitons and send letters weekly to the goverment and stuff. i think its bout time the law changed and maybe if sum1 spoke up more ppl would too. i doubt it would tkae much to persuade the uk into legalisation but i dunno it wont be easy and i just cant see it :( as much as i fuckin badly want that shit tho man.

if we get our voices across in numbers. and in quanitity and we do it regualarly so they cant 4get about us then maybe.

I SAY ALL UK STONERS STORM 10 DOWNIGN STREET DRESSED AS A CANNABIS LEAF ON A HUNGER STRIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Encatuse]

Think about how expensive making marijuana legal all of a sudden would be for our government though. They'd have to pay people for all the things they took from them ((weed, houses, cars)) etcetera and pay people for the time they spent in jail huge sums of money or face getting sued. Etcetera....

But I am all for it. Marilize Legauana

[RESiNATE]

I SAY ALL UK STONERS STORM 10 DOWNIGN STREET DRESSED AS A CANNABIS LEAF ON A HUNGER STRIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lmaoo
I can hear the cries of: "And they say that cannabis isn't mentally harmful!!!"
lol
:D

Petitions don't work, unless you can counter-attack all of their arguments.
Letters won't get past the post office.

Ask yourself a few simple questions:

Why should we legalise weed?
How would industry suffer as a result of cannabis-inebriation?
How could you 'police' the work-place?
How would you police 'drugged in charge of..' type laws? (ie, driving, working heavy machinery, etc, etc)
What would be considered as 'personal use', and conversely, 'drug dealing'?

Those just to get you started!
and we haven't even thought about taxation and state health burdens!

Ultimately,
How would the general population benefit from legalisation of cannabis?

Res...

[GHoSToKeR]

They'd have to pay people for all the things they took from them ((weed, houses, cars)) etcetera and pay people for the time they spent in jail huge sums of money or face getting sued. Etcetera....

That wouldnt happen.. If somebody goes to jail for possession of weed, and then weed is made legal, that person would still have to serve the rest of their sentence, because weed was illegal at the time that they were caught in possession of it. The change in law wouldnt be retroactive - people still broke the law when the law was in place... :)

[dog420]

I SAY ALL UK STONERS STORM 10 DOWNIGN STREET DRESSED AS A CANNABIS LEAF ON A HUNGER STRIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!That would be funny as hell. ;)

[RESiNATE]

Remember, it's not the government that you have to convince!

You have to find the most ardent anti-cannabis 'campaigner', and convince THEM!

The government(s) are well aware of the pros and cons, but it's a game of numbers...and I'm afraid that we stoners rank in the minority.
If we can convince the stubbornest, thick-skinned, ill-informed bigots, then we can become a majority...get it?
lol

It's not an easy task, but then things that are worthwhile generally aren't, are they?
:rolleyes:
Another question worth answering:
Why do you smoke dope?
What is your justification?

I bet the first thing that comes to mind is: "'Cos I can't stand reality, cannabis helps me to cope."

They, of course, will immediately accuse you of shirking your responsibilities, or that you are somehow diminished in your resolve. they will list loads of situations in which non-tokers cope with alot more shit than you will ever experience....and yet, they seem to 'cope'.
lol

I'm rambling...I'll go now...
lol
Res...

[robert42]

lol we could do somit like fathers 4 justice do!

http://www.lca-uk.org

there the best for info

[GHoSToKeR]

Why should we legalise weed?

Because it's an infringment on our rights, our freedoms, our liberties.

The people should be given the responsibility to make their own decisions - if they want to partake in an activity that has no victim, and will adversly effect nobody, then they should be allowed to do so.

The last 40 years of anti-drug legislation have failed! When has any other part of government policy ever failed so consistantly, year after year, but still been enforced, more aggresively each year? Despite the government pouring millions, maybe even billions, of pounds of tax payers money into the 'war on drugs', the number of drug users, Cannabis especially, has risen expinentially. It's tiem the government stop wasting our money, and actually consider the alternative.

How would industry suffer as a result of cannabis-inebriation?

To put it simply, it wouldnt. The 'work place' has not suffered from the presence of legally available alcohol in shops, bars, and clubs, with the exception of days taken off sick due to hangovers. Fortunately, Cannabis does not cause hangovers.

How could you 'police' the work-place?

Again, nobody would be required to 'police' the work-place any more than at the moment. Cannabis is illegal, and many employers have taken it upon themselves to make it a part of their employees contract to be subject to random drugs testing. If Cannabis was legal, these drug tests could and would still be used.

How would you police 'drugged in charge of..' type laws? (ie, driving, working heavy machinery, etc, etc)

The same way driving under the influence of alcohol is policed now. Actually, in recent weeks, there has been talk of police being given the power and equipment to test people for driving under the influence of illegal substances, instead of just testing for driving under the influence of alcohol. The method's of testing would not need to change.

What would be considered as 'personal use', and conversely, 'drug dealing'?

Under the current 'laws' (here I am talking about the island of Jersey in the UK - where I live), possession of Cannabis is classed as being found in the possession of small amounts of Cannabis. There is no defining point - somebody with an ounce could still charged with possession of Cannabis, just as somebody with an eighth. It is put upen the discretion of the arresting officer to decide if the Cannabis found on the person was intended for personal use or for supplying. Usually, you will be charged with 'intent to supply...' if you are found with large quantities of Cannabis, or if the amount you have is chopped up - in other words, if you have an ounce that is devided into quarter ounces, or similiar. The same rules could apply, even if Cannabis was made legal.

:)

:)

[RESiNATE]

Here is what the opposers will say to your answers, GHoST (nothing personal)

ITEM 1:
And what of the rights and freedoms of those that choose not to use cannabis?
Cannabis use is not victimless - how many families have split due to one (or other's) using cannabis - lethargy, non-compus-mentus, etc?
The 'war on drugs' is largely funded by monies that have been seized from drug related activities, the extra burden to the economy can be off-set by the reduction of drug-related illnesses that put a constant strain upon the national health service.

ITEM 2:
If an accident occurs at the work-place, and it is found that the person responsible for that accident is under the influence of cannabis...well, you can guess the rest lol
Alcohol inebriation is a great deal easier to detect than cannabis (fumes on the breath alone), and is easier to quantify (alcohol/blood levels).

ITEM 3:
How would you quantify the level of cannabis exposure, and furthermore a persons judgement skills thereof?
Is cannabis detectable? And to what degree? (<--I genuinely don't know the answer)

ITEM 4:
You'll probably find that the drugs test that police can administer only detect harder drugs (coke, heroin, etc)...certain over-the-counter medication will show a positive result for cannabis (Ibruprofen, for example). Moreover, what powers of arrest would they have with cannabis? You can sit in a room of tokers, and still test positive.
There is also the consideration of company insurance, vehicle insurance, limitations of use acts, etc, etc.

ITEM 5:
One man could make an ounce last a month, other people would see an ounce as being a sessions worth, or daily supply....What if you are using it for mecidinal purposes? An ounce might only be a days worth, init!


See, what seems perfectly reasonable to you, is most likely totally absurd to another.
There has to be compromise across the board.

How does Amsterdam do it?
Contrary to what most people think, Amsterdam still has a drug problem...mostly from visiting tourists, it has to be said lol
There's THAT to consider, also!

The UK is already a very attractive destination because of our stupid benefits schemes...add free-reign of drugs to that, and all of a sudden.....we got big problems ;)

[GHoSToKeR]

I see your point, RESiNATE, but I have a problem with some of those arguements.. These would be my responses if somebody was to use those arguements in a discussion with me..

ITEM 1:
And what of the rights and freedoms of those that choose not to use cannabis?
Cannabis use is not victimless - how many families have split due to one (or other's) using cannabis - lethargy, non-compus-mentus, etc?
The 'war on drugs' is largely funded by monies that have been seized from drug related activities, the extra burden to the economy can be off-set by the reduction of drug-related illnesses that put a constant strain upon the national health service.

You state 'And what about the rights of those that choose not to use Cannabis?'. This point is irrelevant. Because something is made legal, it in no way means that people that choose not to engage in said activity will be forced to. It in no way means that the rights of those who choose not to engage in said activity will be losing any of their rights, in fact, the opposite would be true - these people would have the right to choose, as would everybody. Those who choose not to smoke Cannabis are simply excercising their right to choose not to, just as many people choose not to consume alcohol.

You state that 'Cannabis is not victimless'. I beg to differ. A person who chooses to smoke Cannabis in the privacy of their own home, is not directly having a negative or detrimental effect on anybody else. Matter such as families splitting up due to one member's smoking of Cannabis are not directly the cause of the Cannabis itself, but of the individuals concerned - just because Cannabis is (hypothetically) legal, responsibility still must be shown. In fact, the 'War on Drugs' has done more to split families up than the drug itself, as people found in possession of Cannabis are then seen as criminals, and the fact that they were not harming anybody is forgotten.

A large portion of police time in the UK is spent on Cannabis related matters. If Cannabis was legalised, the huge burden on the police force would be lifted, and their time could be spent apprehending those who commit crimes which actually have a victim.

Studies have shown that in countries where Cannabis has been legalized and commercialised (namely Holland), Cannabis use has actually dropped. If the same was to happen in the UK - and there is no reason to think it wouldnt - then the 'strain' put on the NHS due to drug-related illnesses would drop, rather than rise. Also, were Cannabis to be legalised, commercialised, and distributed by the government, the government would make a substantial profit from taxing Cannabis, which could be fed back in to the NHS. On the same note, because the amount of people using Cannabis would drop, and the strain on the NHS from drug-related illnesses would drop, the NHS would have more money (from the governemts tax on Cannabis) to use on patients of other categories.

ITEM 2:
If an accident occurs at the work-place, and it is found that the person responsible for that accident is under the influence of cannabis...well, you can guess the rest lol
Alcohol inebriation is a great deal easier to detect than cannabis (fumes on the breath alone), and is easier to quantify (alcohol/blood levels).

Regarding your first point - If Cannabis were to be legalised, responsibility still must be shown. If a person shows up for work drunk, then the person is to blame, not the alcohol itself. People must be given the choice to take responsibility for their own actions, and on the whole, they do so when given the opportunity. A minute amount of people show up for work intoxicated, and the same would apply for Cannabis.

I agree with your second point, Alcohol inebriation is a great deal easier to detect than Cannabis. But again, I see this point as irrelevant. Just because Cannabis is legal, in no way means people are going to turn up for work stoned - those that do will be risking their lives, as well as their career. Again, Cannabis can not and should not be blamed for the lack of responsibility of individuals.

ITEM 3:
How would you quantify the level of cannabis exposure, and furthermore a persons judgement skills thereof?
Is cannabis detectable? And to what degree? (<--I genuinely don't know the answer)

Drug testing (urine tests, swab test, hair tests, etc) can detect Cannabis. Obviously, the level of Cannabis intoxication that is deemed 'acceptable' would have to be considered, but again, I must go back to the same point - Cannabis can not and should not be blamed for the lack of responsibility of individuals who choose to smoke Cannabis..

ITEM 4:
You'll probably find that the drugs test that police can administer only detect harder drugs (coke, heroin, etc)...certain over-the-counter medication will show a positive result for cannabis (Ibruprofen, for example). Moreover, what powers of arrest would they have with cannabis? You can sit in a room of tokers, and still test positive.
There is also the consideration of company insurance, vehicle insurance, limitations of use acts, etc, etc.

As stated earlier, a number of different drug tests can detect Cannabis - I know from personal experience.

I dont fully understand your second point. If Cannabis were legalized and regulated by the government, then why would police need 'power of arrest' over Cannabis smokers?

Also, the question of insurance, etc, should be dalt with in the same way insurance etc is dealt with in regards to alcohol consumption.

ITEM 5:
One man could make an ounce last a month, other people would see an ounce as being a sessions worth, or daily supply....What if you are using it for mecidinal purposes? An ounce might only be a days worth, init!

I personally do not know of anybody that can consume an ounce of Cannabis in a day. Some people smoke alot of Cannabis, some people dont, just as some people consume alot of alcohol, and some people dont. Again, your point is referring to hoq the government would prosicute people found in possession of different amounts of Cannabis - if it were to be legalised, then possession would not warrent an arrest and/or prosicution, only cultivating or distributing Cannabis would result in prosicution. If this were the case, then law enforcement agencies would be able to differentient between personal amounts and amounts intended to be dstributed, by using the same method they do currently.


Anyway, I dont know if my points are entirely correct, and im too stoned to read through it all again, but they would be my counter-arguements :)

[RESiNATE]

Okies, GHoST, now your thinking...:)

Possible retorts...lol:

ITEM 1:
So, what footing did the legislation on smoking in public stand?
You cannot EVER relate cannabis to alcohol (in respect of personal intrusion) ie, someone drinking a pint next to me, in no way infringes upon my rights of declination.
Also, you are assuming that all cannabis users are responsible, considerate, and moderate...assumption isn't a defense lol, it's called supposition. Therefore, to suggest that police time would benefit, is an empty statement - we all know how much police time is consumed on an average saturday night, to know that that is not the case.
Places such as Holland, have had a liberal approach to life for quite some time - please post your source of information on the lowered drug use figures in Holland :)
I agree about the financial benefits that this government could enjoy through taxation, but to suggest that the quantity of drug use would diminish post-legalisation, is again supposition.

ITEM 2:
lmao, try telling an insurance company that! :D
Cannabis is a psychoactive drug - in terms of law, diminished responsibilty.
We all know that a great deal of workers turn up for work stoned, etc - but the insurance companies (the only one's who seem to be able to use supposition effectively within their conditions) would argue for MANDATORY drug testing...believe it, dude ;)

ITEM 3:
Cannabis can stay in the system for up to six months, unlike alcohol whic can stay in the system for about 14hrs (dependant upon levels of consumption, body mass, etc, etc)...they gonna have to be very succinct in their inebriation evaluations lol

ITEM 4:
The point I'm trying to make is, where do you draw the line on passive smoking?
Someone could come around to your house for a meal, not join in the toking (boring person lol), but still test positive for cannabis use on the way home.
Remember, it's not us you have to convince, it's the staunch opposer ;)
I agree with your point about similarising the insurance towards alcohol...but again, clear scalability must be found as to what constitutes 'inability to control a vehicle'.

ITEM 5:
"I personally do not know of anybody that can consume an ounce of Cannabis in a day"...bring me an ounce, and I'll enlighten you bwhahaha.
But seriously, there is a solution to this problem of possession, but I'm still working on the finer points - I'll get back to you on this...

Some of the arguments are pathetic and seem unworthy of discussion, but you can rest assured that the opposers will be using these pedantic issues to bolster their viewpoint...take a look at any 'compensation suit', and my argument will be bourne out ;)

lol
Donbt give up yet, the answer is there, we just have to dig about a bit to discover it :)

Res...

[GHoSToKeR]

ITEM 1:
My statement that Cannabis (along with other, 'harder' drugs) usage is lower in Holland is not supposition.

Here are the figures: http://www.csdp.org/ads/dutch2.htm

These findings show exactly what I stated: That drug usage is lower in the Netherlands than elsewhere, due to their more liberal stance on drugs. The Dutch governmet has implimented all sorts of policies to regulate and control the distribution and regulation of drugs, and has benifited from it immensely. They follow a strong public health approach to drugs, by having a more compassionate approach, as opposed to the repressive approach of the US and the UK.

Similarly, the Netherlands has a rate of incarceration that is roughly 11% that of the US. One assumption, or supposition, that I am going to admit to making, is that there must be a direct correlation between their drug policy, and their incarceration rate. Surely this approach would benifit the whole of the United Kingdom, not just as stoners?

The Netherlands also has a lower rate of drug addiction than the rest of Europe, and substantially lower than the United Kingdom.

The only way people could say that drug usage increases after decriminilisation or legalisation, is because more people are willing to admit to taking a drug if said drug is not illegal.. Alot of people wont publicly admit to using illegal drugs, but will admit to drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco, because admitting that wont get them into trouble with their employers and/or families and friends.

Here is an interesting link: http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/thenetherlan/

ITEM 2:
Do insurance companies ask for manditory alcohol testing in the work-place? Why would they demand it if Cannabis was legal?

ITEM 3:
lol True, but Cannabis inhebriation is very different to alcohol inhebration - driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is far more dangerous, and so must be more tightly regulated. The measures taken to regulate driving while under the influence of Cannabis will need not be as strict, complicated, and because Cannabis use is far lower then alcohol use, it will also be less expensive, and easier to impliment.

ITEM 4:
Where is your proof that Cannabis will show up in, say, hair testing, from passive marijuana smoking? Surely, those that impliment the tests have ways of determining whether somebody was a smoker or a passive smoker - based on levels of Cannabis in the hair, blood, or urine, surely they can make that distinction?

ITEM 5:
I cant wait :)

http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion1.htm

[/QUOTE]

[RESiNATE]

Thanks for the figures and weblinks :)




ITEM 2:
Do insurance companies ask for manditory alcohol testing in the work-place? Why would they demand it if Cannabis was legal?
Because it's another asswipe clause that they could include - don't forget that the UK is Europe's biggest consumer of recreational drugs...the insurance companies would play on this to make a fast buck...the bastards!



ITEM 3:
lol True, but Cannabis inhebriation is very different to alcohol inhebration - driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is far more dangerous, and so must be more tightly regulated.
I agree, but then there are conflicting studies that suggest the ability of a stoned driver; one says that they are safer (over-cautious?), whilst another adamantly suggests that they are more dangerous! :confused:
It boils down to adequately conducted INDEPENDENT research, and proper UNBIASED education (ie, studies NOT carried out by pharmecutical companies, that obviously have a vested interest!)



ITEM 4:
Where is your proof that Cannabis will show up in, say, hair testing, from passive marijuana smoking? Surely, those that impliment the tests have ways of determining whether somebody was a smoker or a passive smoker - based on levels of Cannabis in the hair, blood, or urine, surely they can make that distinction?
I admit to being somewhat in the dark about such things.
Again, proper research is needed, along with clear guidelines on limitations, etc.



ITEM 5:
I cant wait :)

Nor can I!!! :D:D:o:confused:....:D
Pending....

I am, of course, playing 'devil's advocate' on this, but the trick to wining an argument (ie, presenting a case to the staunch opposer) is to pre-suppose every single retort that they can throw at you (no matter how silly) and slap a rejoiner in their face.
A direction is beginning to form, but the facts are still to be cemented.
The opposer will always look at the worst case senario - we must be sure to be able to alay their fears, and present to them a picture that is beyond reasonable doubt.

It is not the government that we must convince; we live in a democracy (allegedly) and they must adhere to the majority vote.
Otherwise, they must be ousted:mad:

Res...

[GHoSToKeR]

I agree, Res.. I just wish that, for once, the government would stop being so selfish. Every single policy our government invents is solely for their benifit. They wouldnt admit that, of course, but if it wasnt true, then our society would be a hell of alot different. All they have to do is look at the drug figures in Holland, talk to Hollands government, and fucking do something. This has been an interesting debate, RESiNATE! Thanks :)

[poorman3]

resinate, sounds like your off to a great start. have you slept any? lol. i think yall need to quit debating the issues. your both for the legalisation of cannabis right. so why did you ghost, go and make another post about the same thing? when both of you are so smart to figure this thing out why, are you dividing your forces? i know i could never do what you guys are doing. so goodluck with the cause. this is just my opinion from an observers point of veiw. peace.

[GHoSToKeR]

resinate, sounds like your off to a great start. have you slept any? lol. i think yall need to quit debating the issues. your both for the legalisation of cannabis right. so why did you ghost, go and make another post about the same thing? when both of you are so smart to figure this thing out why, are you dividing your forces? i know i could never do what you guys are doing. so goodluck with the cause. this is just my opinion from an observers point of veiw. peace.
lol dude, we're just havin a chat or debate or whatever.. we're not actually doing anything... if we WERE then i would definately want RESiNATE on my team, he could talk anyone to the ground lol :p

[Lulu]

108 MEPs â?? including Ireland's Patricia McKenna â?? have signed an appeal to world governments and to the United Nations, calling for an end to the so-called "war on drugs". The petition argues that prohibition laws have actually encouraged drug use, while wasting valuable resources in the process.

The appeal maintains that the UN conventions on drugs are harmful because they are an obstacle to prevention, lead to blind repression and create rising profits for organised criminals. It also underlines the positive results offered by decriminalisation policies.

The text of the petition is available to read here. The petition can also be signed by members of the public and we ask all who oppose prohibition to register their opposition by signing it.

http://www.radicalparty.org/lia_paa_appeal_new/form.php?lang=en

http://www.cannabisireland.com/

[3s BEL]

And just think about the industrial possibilities of the hennep plant....
Fuel, Clothing, paper ......... If I remember correct you could find over 10 000 industrials ways to use hennep and don't forget that it's a cheap, fast growing plant. Scientists need to work on cannabis and his secrets.
btw did ya know that in the book of exodus (the original Hebrew version, prior to the bible) there is a recipe for holy oil (the oil they used at everything) and that the word kalmus is misstranslated, the original word: kaneh-bosem: aromatic hennep. Some people believe that Jesus even used it (he wasn't the first holy man, in the ancienct world and most scientist agree on this, cannabis was a common medicine). All the jewish kings and priest since Mozes were baptised with it, after the Jewish kings fell it got banned. No one has tried this oil since I think, what would be the effects of it? cuz the psychoactive drug can also penetrate the skin and come in your blood circulation.
Hell maybe Jesus never used cannabis before he was baptised and he just went tripping when John baptised him, seeing a white pigeon and stuff....
Yes even the great philosofers used it (aristoteles, plato ...) so how can you be against a plant that gave so much and demands nothing in return.....

[3s BEL]

[COLOR=Green][B]108 MEPs â?? including Ireland's Patricia McKenna â?? have signed an appeal to world governments and to the United Nations, calling for an end to the so-called "war on drugs". The petition argues that prohibition laws have actually encouraged drug use, while wasting valuable resources in the process.
....

It's been even proofed in my eyes by the Americans when they had the prohibition law on alcohol in the beginning of the 20th century.

[GHoSToKeR]

cool links, Lululuuuululululu :) I just wonder if they UN will listen.. ??

[poorman3]

well ghost if your not doing anything you should be. like you said somewhere in a post your always ranting and raving about how the drug laws should be changed. you have the time and the ability. don`t waist your time debaiting another stoner get out there and debate with the people that can change the laws. your just blowing hot air when you rant and rave. put your skills to work because you and resinate have the skills. if you ain`t going to shit get off the pot. lol. peace.

[RESiNATE]

Cool links, Lulu - I've visited cannabisireland before, but couldn't remember the addy as I only stumbled across it...thanks for reminding me of it, a very informative site.
(I didn't hurt myself in the stumble, btw :D)

We must adopt an anti-cannabis viewpoint if we are to get anywhere ("know your enemy"?). I think that the main problem that campaigners have, is that they try to justify themselves, instead of undermining their opposition - most debates end with the campaigner saying "it's not fair!" lol...life, as we all know, aint fair.
Let's make it fair!

The prohibition on cannabis is a travesty - it takes away the individual freedom of choice that has little or no consequence upon the populace.

Language is very important too.
We would campaign for legal drug USE, whereas the opposer will demonstrate drug ABUSE...two TOTALLY different arguments...the latter of which both parties are in concurrence, I think.

We must demonstrate how cannabis, as a mecidinal thing, would benefit society, rather than the individual - the masses aren't concerned with individuals, because they aren't in the equation.
We must put more pressure upon the government to introduce better drug education in schools - something that I'm not sure is anywhere near adequate.

Cannabis, as we all know, has many qualities that could be used to society's advantage, but that fact brings with it many implications about present methods of manufacture - I'm sure that the cotton industry would be delighted to see hemp brought back as a viable material...NOT! lol
(ever wondered why we still use petrol to fuel our cars? lmaoo)

We must be mindful of the image that the majority of the population view us - hippy-like ne'er-do-wells, who sit around saying "yeah, man..cool"...and NOT go down the same road as Fathers For Justice..sheesh, they must like the taste of their own feet! :rolleyes:

I'm willing to take them on, but I can't do it alone...
So, if this little debate has stirred some passion within you, then put that passion to good use:
JUSTIFY YOUR HABIT/NEED FOR WEED.
DO SOME RESEARCH TO BACK YOURSELF UP.
WRITE IT ALL DOWN!

and post it at Cannabis.com! (yay)
but, be warned, your thesis must be air-tight...after all, there'll be a thousand and one lawyers who will seek to discredit you in the 'real-world' :(

Right then, cup of tea, anyone?:D

RESiNATE

[robert42]

any1 up for a naked cannabis march up london ? lol :p

LEGALIZZZZZZZZZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Lulu]

Right then, cup of tea, anyone?:D

I'll start buttering the rich tea ;)

[Lulu]

The men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better than those who try to do nothing and succeed.

Lloyd Jones

[RESiNATE]

Have any of you heard of "The Wooton Report"?
I hadn't...until now :D
(http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/wootton/wootton_toc.htm)

I have just waded through the whole document and have arrived at some encouraging conclusions.
I'm not going to discuss those conclusions here and now, save to say that if you meet with disapproval from people about your habit, then you would do well to point them in the general direction of this report.

Anyways, just thought I'd pass on the knowledge ;)
And to let you know that I am beginning to formulate plans lol

If anyone wanted to help, then you could do this:
Just ask people that you meet; "What would worry you about cannabis being legalised?"
If you could make notes about the general consensus of opinion, then post them, I would be grateful :) - I need to know why people are objectionable to the legalisation of cannabis...(obviously, don't be asking your stoner mates lmaoo...kinda defeats the object hehehe)

Thanks :)
Res...

[poorman3]

o.k. res, i`ll ask the few people i know that do not partake in our habits. it might take a while though as we seldom seem to meet. lol.

[RESiNATE]

Cool, Poorman...yups about seldom meetings lol :D
Oh, and try not to get drawn into an argument lol, just accept their answer and then change the topic lmao...

It's easier to defend/discredit an opinion if we know what that opinion is (generally) before argument takes place...ever wondered why 'disclosure' was made law?
;)

If anything (if the person questions your interest), just adopt an anti-drugs air about you, and say that you are doing a paper for college, or summat...maybe you can draw a bit more from them...'knowledge is power', to coin a phrase ;)

Muchos gracias!

[poorman3]

hey resinate, have you tried the keyhole.com satilite program? you can type in the address you want to look at and it moves to your address. you can focus in and out. pretty cool, i think its free for 7 days then you have to buy it. that is if you can take a break. lol. i had it for 6 days then got rid of it.


o.k. i`ll not let them get under my skin. peace.

[GHoSToKeR]

If anyone wanted to help, then you could do this:
Just ask people that you meet; "What would worry you about cannabis being legalised?"
The few people i've asked in the past while have said things like this:


It can cause long-term psychological problems, ie pyschosis etc
If the government were to legalise Cannabis, then it would give people the opinion that the government encourage the use of it.
The strain, financial and otherwise, on the government, were they to legalise it, would be enormous, and the tax-payer would suffer.
They trust their government, and if the government wont legalise it, then it must be for a legitimate reason.
Most arguements revolve around those four points..

:)

[RESiNATE]

Thanks GHoST :)

Here are some possible retorts that you could offer those people:

"It can cause long-term psychological problems, ie pyschosis etc

(taken from 'The Wooton Report' http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/wootton/wootton_toc.htm)
This extensive study of cannabis use and it's affects upon it's users, and society, concluded that "...One medical witness mentioned having seen a few cases of acute psychosis following cannabis-use, but did not feel completely satisfied that cannabis had been the cause." ... and..."Having reviewed all the material available to us we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission appointed by the Government of India (1891-1894) and the New York Mayorâ??s Committee on Marihuana (1944), that the long-term consumption of cannabis in moderate doses has no harmful effects."...and..."There is no evidence that this activity is causing violent crime or aggression, anti-social behaviour, or is producing in otherwise normal people conditions of dependence or psychosis, requiring medical treatment.

"If the government were to legalise Cannabis, then it would give people the opinion that the government encourage the use of it."
This is quite simply a ridiculous fear - Alcohol is legal, and yet we see much evidence of its affect upon society...therefore, are we to trust the government that they are concerned with our health?...the same can be said of tobacco, which is attributable to many deaths per year:
(taken from http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact02.html)
Illness caused by smoking

Smoking has more than 50 ways of making life a misery through illness and more than 20 ways of killing you. In general, smokers endure poorer health than non-smokers. It has been estimated that, in England, 364,000 patients are admitted to NHS hospitals each year due to diseases caused by smoking. This translates into 7,000 hospital admissions per week, or 1,000 day. [1] In 1997/98, cigarette smoking caused an estimated 480,000 patients to consult their GP for heart disease, 20,000 for stroke and nearly 600,000 for COPD"

"The strain, financial and otherwise, on the government, were they to legalise it, would be enormous, and the tax-payer would suffer."
The UK government is currently funding the 'war on drugs' at a cost of over £400Million per year!...and it aint working!
(taken from http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0%2C8150%2C961103%2C00.html)
"The reality is that, after five years of effort and with a budget now topping £400m a year, despite relentlessly hard work from some 5,000 dedicated people on the ground, there is an alarming shortage of effective treatment and no sign of a reduction in demand for drugs."

"They trust their government, and if the government wont legalise it, then it must be for a legitimate reason."
lmaoo...just mention the war on Iraq!!!...ask them if THAT was legitimate, and how they can attribute it to the government's awareness of legitimacy!

Thanks for the feedback, GHoST :D
I am getting deeper into this, and along the way I am realising a great deal more than I previously did about this!
There is soo much more to consider, than just health issues.
For instance, there is much corruption to consider.
The tobacco industry is a very powerful lobby, as is the alcohol industry...it would be enlightening to know how much funding to the government these organisations are supplying ;)

Res...

[GHoSToKeR]

The problem, RESiNATE, is that the Wootten Report was given to the Home Secretary in 1968. The only change in Cannabis legislation since 1968 has been declassification; unfortunately, you can still be arrested, charged and sent to prison for possession, as in most cases, the severity of the punishment comes under the discretion of the arresting officer(s), or the judge dealing with the case. So, since the Wootten Report, there has been nearly no change.

I would like to hear some of your ideas and thoughts :)

[robert42]

res and ghost u 2 know ur shit man with u guys as the future the future is lookin more green then ever ;)

LEGALIZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[RESiNATE]

As an addendum to the above (regarding legitimacy of prohibition and the government's eagrness to continue in that vien), this makes interesting reading lol
http://www.angryharry.com/esWaronDrugs.htm

Res...

[RESiNATE]

Furthermore....

How much money is government recieving from tobacco companies? (USA)
"The IRRC findings were reported by the Cybercast News Service (CNS) in a series of stories in March. Doug Cogan, director of IRRC's Tobacco Information Service, told CNS that even beyond the investments--Texas alone put $10 million into tobacco stocks--very few tobacco-settlement dollars were being spent on preventing tobacco use. Cogan puts the figure at as little as 5 percent. (The General Accounting Office estimated last year that 7 percent of the settlement was being used for prevention programs.)

According to the terms of the settlement, 46 states will receive $206 billion from tobacco companies over the next 25 years, with no stipulation as to how the funds will be spent. Because some 95 percent of this money is being poured into general revenues, the states have actually become invested in the financial well-being of the companies."
(taken from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_2_34/ai_85701093)

Hmmm...I wonder why the government don't make tobacco illegal?
Especially when it accounts for a high percentage of strains upon the economy!!!

So, to the issue of "They trust their government, and if the government wont legalise it, then it must be for a legitimate reason.".... here is a 'reason'....legitimate?

Res...

[RESiNATE]

The problem, RESiNATE, is that the Wootten Report was given to the Home Secretary in 1968.

I would like to hear some of your ideas and thoughts :)
Very true, GHoST, however, I am only interested in the health issues that this report concludes, and the socio-schematic implications that are 'discredited' therein.
As far as I am aware, the medical research side of things hasn't uncovered any changes in concensus...quite the opposite, in fact.

As for my thoughts and ideas...I'm still working on it lmaoo
There is alot of information to process, as I'm sure you're aware, and I want to be sure of my facts ;)

Res...