Legalise Cannabis: The Start...

[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?

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!
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/dru.../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!
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!!! ....
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

Res...