Legalisation of marijuana

[canikickit]

What happens to the needle after you inject yourself full of crap?? There is a huge problem with discarded needles that junkies have left around!! Kids die, animals suffer, and even other drug users [going outside the "stopping people using thier bodies in a drug free way" here] can contract AIDS by using them!!!

If heroin was legal, what makes you think this problem would become so much worse?
Think of the reason why things are as you describe. The junkies leave the needles lying around because they are sleeping on the streets, they have to go to alley ways, or perhaps children's playgrounds at night so as to avoid the police.

The other drug users may re-use needles because they cannot get any any where else. If the taboo of heroin was removed these people would have easier access to needles. Many drugs user could possibly be unaware of the dangers of re-using needles.

All of the problem you describe would be alleviated with legalisation. The people aren't going to take to the streets in their hundreds of thousands, injecting heroin into every available veins, munching fistfulls of pills and inhaling cannabis smoke, life would pretty much go on as normal.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 5 2003, 09:09 PM
canikickit you disagree with the drugs laws we have now, i assume you believe it to be to authoritarian, yet you are happy to see people 'banned from smoking at bus stops'?

Do you think an eighty five year old grandmother doesn't do heroin only because it is illegal?
I doubt it, unless she was still addicted when some crazy liberal legalised it when she was 40, in her mind making it safe for use. (though i doubt she'd live till 85)
So if you are 40 or under - anything that becomes legal is immediately appealing to you? You'd be on the PCP bandwagon if only the cops would stop bugging you about it? :rolleyes:

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

BTW - a "needle exchange" is something people here have apprently never heard of. You don't throw your needles on the ground unless you are either living in a place that has legal restrictions uppon needle purchase and use or you are wealthy. Most heroin addicts on the street are not wealthy.

The way it works in places with a more sensible drug policy is that they have places where you show up with your used needles and in return for giving them to the proper authorities to be disposed of safely - you get a fresh batch of needles. No kid needs to come anywhere near a discarded needle if the government is willing to adopt such a program - and addict would not be burdening the health care system with all kinds of nasty infections.

At least decriminalizing heroin use and allowing greater access to needles would almost eliminate the problem of discarded needles - not the other way around. Even hard-core anti-drug campaigners have to concede that fact. Their current argument is along the lines of: "We don't care if the laws are harmful - they are moral".

--- G.

[Saint-Just]

Governments could take those measures and things would become safer than they are now, and less costly. But they would also be condoning drug use, for eternity. The goal of every government is to wipe out drug use as far as possible, with the means they have in western liberal democracies they are pursuing that path as best they can.

[The Children of the Revolution]

...The people aren't going to take to the streets in their hundreds of thousands, injecting heroin into every available veins, munching fistfulls of pills and inhaling cannabis smoke...


Ok, I agree. Not in their hundreds of thousands. But many people will be encouraged to "experiment" with drugs. "Hard" drugs like Heroin are a very real danger to individuals. If the state suddenly legalised this killer - which is what it is - don't you think many barriers would be broken down in people's minds??? From my (not too extensive, I admit) knowledge of hard drugs, they waste lives and have no positive impact whatsoever. If only 1000 people (and I think it would certainly be more) "experimented" with hard drugs - not injecting heroin into every available vein, just "experimenting" - that's potentially 1000 lives destroyed. All so other wasters [getting controversial] and junkies can legitimately and happily go about their business? Let's face it, 'druggies' are a burden to society. Rehabilitation should be actively encouraged - drug use is a problem, a disorder. Legalising drugs won't solve the problem, it will worsen it!

Furthermore, legalising drugs will increase their demand. This will, in turn, increase the available supply. (as customs laws are dismembered) And where do most drugs originate? In the third world, where labour can easily be exploited. Drugs would become the ultimate "cash crop". (As I believe it was "Soviet power supreme" said - a good point) We constantly hear of drug cartels and gangs in the news - fighting each other, not oppressive governments. How much worse would this problem become if the demand suddenly doubled, and if they no longer had to fight the Columbian army?

And as for the
sensible drug policy whereby
you show up with your used needles and in return for giving them to the proper authorities to be disposed of safely - you get a fresh batch of needles. ... This has already been introduced!!! It id part of our "sensible policy"!!! But it does not eliminate the problem. And if the number of heroin users doubled, the number of people not using these institutions would presumably also double - BAD plan! [REALLY controversial -->] I don't know what makes you think that your average Heroin user (social outcast, criminal, anti-establishment) would use such a place anyway - whether Heroin was legal or not.

Drugs are bad M'kay???
Don't do drugs M'kay???

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

What about the extra burden on health services?
an example of this is £19m - the amount drug action teams spent on detox last year. here are the figures for the poeple on the detox:
3,800 - the number of users who successfully go through detox
1,328 - the number who emerged drug-free
Wouldnt it be better if insted of wasting the money attemptin to put a few people through rehab we could use it to spend on more neccesary illnesses?

[crazy comie]

You can tax the drugs have re hab and use it to pay for madicene.

[The Children of the Revolution]

TAX DRUGS???

We must be mad; how has it come to this...

Anyone fancy setting up a poll so we can find out what the less out-spoken amongst us think???
Just a simple one, like "Marijuana: Legalise or Not".
Or perhaps "Marijuana: have you done it?" might be more popular :P

I reckon some of us here must have done... (canismokeit? dhul "weed" cigar? :) )

No offence chaps...

[canikickit]

What about the extra burden on health services?

Look at the link about the Swiss heroin policy. Their medicinal system is cheaper.


don't you think many barriers would be broken down in people's minds???

No! I don't think people are as stupid as you do.

I think that if heroin was legalised, the people who are experiencing problems with the drug would gradually have a boost in their standards of living. The would be able to be honest about their medical problems, and would no longer be reduced to using filthy street-crap heroin with varying levels in quality. They wouldn't be strung out trying to get heroin and would no longer be at the mercy of the street dealers, who often introduce artificial droughts to raise the price.

Drugs already are an "ultimate" cash crop. Their already are gang wars and drug cartels - why do you need a gang if you can get heroin legally? You don't need armed gaurds around your crop if there's no one coming to arrest you.

[Dhul Fiqar]

People have a very very distorted view of many drugs - and I think the attitude people have towards heroin really takes the cake. Most people have no interest at all in trying it because of the taboo associated. Even those that TEND NOT TO ENJOY IT!! The first times on a strong opiate tend to induce intense nausea, vomiting, dry heaving, extreme itching and basically a feeling of: "I think I am going to die!!". Not exactly "one dose and you're hooked" as people would have you believe. Many people even try it several times and find it does not agree with them - just like with any other drug.

I know literally a dozen or so people that have experiemented with heroin and none of them currently uses it - about three or four ran into substance abuse issues before they quit. On their own.
I know they are lucky - but they are not in the minority.

All of the IV addicts I have known used needle exchanges - the notion that a mode of administration automatically makes you an irresponsible moron is laughable. IVing certain drugs is far safer than insufflating or smoking them.

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 03:44 AM


No! I don't think people are as stupid as you do.

I think that if heroin was legalised, the people who are experiencing problems with the drug would gradually have a boost in their standards of living. The would be able to be honest about their medical problems, and would no longer be reduced to using filthy street-crap heroin with varying levels in quality. They wouldn't be strung out trying to get heroin and would no longer be at the mercy of the street dealers, who often introduce artificial droughts to raise the price.

Drugs already are an "ultimate" cash crop. Their already are gang wars and drug cartels - why do you need a gang if you can get heroin legally? You don't need armed gaurds around your crop if there's no one coming to arrest you.
Well said - comrade :)

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 7 2003, 01:12 AM

Just a simple one, like "Marijuana: Legalise or Not".
Or perhaps "Marijuana: have you done it?" might be more popular :P

I made one in Chit Chat a few weeks ago - results were overwhelmingly for decriminalization.

--- G.

[Soviet power supreme]

.Drugs already are an "ultimate" cash crop. Their already are gang wars and drug cartels - why do you need a gang if you can get heroin legally? You don't need armed gaurds around your crop if there's no one coming to arrest you.

Oh you guys have misunderstood me.I'm not talking about gangs or cartels.If drugs are legalized the cappies will produce drugs at low price in the third world countries.The farm workers would be in a shit job, receiving nothing while you guys would inject that shit in your veins and smoking and eatin pills.

Drugs would be a very lucrative business for capitalists.Do you think that when drugs would be legalized the number of drug addicts would stay the same?

For what I think all cash crops should be criminalized.All of them.Coffee,tobacco,etc,etc.People in the third world countries are starving because they plant cash crops instead of food.Their economy is based on certain product's market price.

[canikickit]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 6 2003, 10:54 PM
The farm workers would be in a shit job, receiving nothing
It's lucky we don't live in a world like that already.

[The Children of the Revolution]

It's lucky we don't live in a world like that already.


Hey, we do, but there's no need to make it worse.

My point about the drug cartels and gangs was specifically NOT related to the battles fought against the governments - which are undoubtadley a problem. It was about the competition to supply such a drug to a widening market. Such competition would neccesarily result in the predominance of only the most vicious and ruthless groups - as with any commodity, but including the associated violence as extra.

Furthermore, if competition was legalised (as it would surely be) in the drug market, cheap low quality drugs would obviously be most successful - for the simple reason that money still reigns supreme in our society. (Worse luck) This is, of course, unless the government were to sanction certain producers and to ban others... In which case the current issue with gangs and cartels would be likely to escalate even further!!!



The first times on a strong opiate tend to induce ..... basically a feeling of: "I think I am going to die!!".


Funny you should say that... Some of them do, you know. The media is not just 'scaremongering' when it reports tragic cases of victims dying after one injection, or one pill... These effects cannot be condoned.

[canikickit]

Hey, we do, but there's no need to make it worse.

What is there to suggest the problem would become worse? Indeed, the drugs are still grown today, in Bolivia, for example and people are going hungry because the US governement wants to do them out of their livelyhood.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1688916.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/779662.stm

The plight of growers will not go away with legalistation, but it wouldn't become worse somehow.


It was about the competition to supply such a drug to a widening market. Such competition would neccesarily result in the predominance of only the most vicious and ruthless groups - as with any commodity, but including the associated violence as extra.

Hey, you could say the same thing about the fast food market. Just because there are drugs involved doesn't mean people are going to get violent.
The reason the violence is "associated" (by you) is because of the drug's illegality. What suggests to you that their would be violence involved if people had permission to grow their own supply of heroin?


The media is not just 'scaremongering' when it reports tragic cases of victims dying after one injection, or one pill

Usually they are. Alternatively the people asked about the events are often lying. For example, if someone's friend died as a result of taking ecstasy, and the media folk asked them wether the person took ecstasy regularily, that guy would more than likely lie to protect his friend's family hurt.

I really think you put too much faith in the government. The government is not your babysitter. The government has no place in people's personal lives. You claim you want these people to become rehabilitated, yet you fail to see that drug policy turns users into second class citizens.

Sweep them under the rug, leave them on the streets, lock them in prisons (where the still get drugs) and throw away the key,...that's what you cause, whether you realise it or not.

[canikickit]

Legalise heroin, says former police chief (http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,8150,589190,00.html)

Make Heroin Legal (http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/comment/0,8146,506730,00.html)

Demonising druggies wins votes. That's all that counts (http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/comment/0,8146,507396,00.html)

Are you against the legalisation of cannabis also?

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Are you against the legalisation of cannabis also?
well duh :P

[canikickit]

revolution!

is your sig an attempt at irony?

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

no, yours?

[canikickit]

The war on drugs is a waste of money. I suggest you read through a few of those articles I've linked to and try and get rid of your conservative outook on life. People don't need governments as some sort of crutch to tell them what' "good" and what is "evil". Heroin, Alcohol and Cannabis don't drive you insane.

Don't you want to change the system?

[The Children of the Revolution]

I suggest you read through a few of those articles I've linked to and try and get rid of your conservative outook on life ..... Don't you want to change the system?


Our system has many flaws, but I don't think drug policy is one of them. Just because I happen to think that marijuana should NOT be legalised, (and certainly not heroin) doesn't mean I have a 'conservative outlook' at all. I simply wish to protect our society from degenerating further.

[crazy comie]

marrjuana is about as dangerous as ciggerets

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Just because i disagree with some thing, doesnt meen i have to disagree with every single little thing.

crazy comie Posted on Nov 7 2003, 04:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
marrjuana is about as dangerous as ciggerets

crazy comie u r a true insperation to us all, your intelligence and wit astounds me comrade. what is your source for this fact?

[Soviet power supreme]

The plight of growers will not go away with legalistation, but it wouldn't become worse somehow.


Where did you get this idea?Not from those articles.


What suggests to you that their would be violence involved if people had permission to grow their own supply of heroin?


People grow their own heroin?
I mean does the cigarette smokers grow their own tobacco?


Are you against the legalisation of cannabis also?
ALL cash crops should be banned.

[The Children of the Revolution]

"canikickit"; (and others supporting legalisation) I don't think I am going to change many opinions here - nor are you going to change mine. I had a look at the articles...



Legalise Heroin, says former police chief

Make Heroin Legal

Demonising druggies wins votes. That's all that counts


... you recommended, and they were unconvincing. (Interesting that you list an article by

a stinking cop
but never mind...)

Can I ask one thing, "canikickit"; (And anyone else, for that matter...)

Would you legalise ALL drugs, be they class A, B, or C??? Or just certain ones??? Please share your wisdom with us comrades...

[canikickit]

You can stop putting my name in inverted commas.


Where did you get this idea?Not from those articles.

I don't see anything to suggest that their situation would become worse. Brerak it down for me and explain why it would.


People grow their own heroin?
I mean does the cigarette smokers grow their own tobacco?

Somebody has to grow it. It doesn't sow and harvest itself. Now what is there to suggest that there will be violence involved in legal growing of heroin?

It makes sense for all drugs to be legal.

[Soviet power supreme]

I don't see anything to suggest that their situation would become worse. Brerak it down for me and explain why it would.


You think that the amount of consumers would stay at same.
Don't you think that amount of users wouldn't grow bigger if it is legalized.
THe amount of user will grow if it is legalized.If it is legalized the price would be lower.If price is lower,workers will receive less money.



Somebody has to grow it. It doesn't sow and harvest itself. Now what is there to suggest that there will be violence involved in legal growing of heroin?

When have i said there is violence involved?


I mean does the cigarette smokers grow their own tobacco?

Didn't you read this?

When drugs are legalized do you think that users will grow their own drugs when it could be bought easy and cheap from a shop.

[The Children of the Revolution]

"Burglary used to be a big problem here. But, since we legalised it, it is no longer a problem!" [Harry Enfield and Chums]


Is that the idea of your arguement??? :P

[canikickit]

You think that the amount of consumers would stay at same.

I do indeed. At least, I don't see why there would be a tremendous growth in the amount of users. That shit is bad for you. Everyone knows that.
(presuming we're talking about heroin still)


When have i said there is violence involved?

I asked: "What suggests to you that their would be violence involved if people had permission to grow their own supply of heroin?"
and you responded: "People grow their own heroin?
I mean does the cigarette smokers grow their own tobacco?"

I don't know who suggested there would be violence, but someone did. I'd like to know what gives them such an outlandish idea.


If price is lower,workers will receive less money.

If I recommend regulating the legality of drugs, does it not follow that I advocate regulating the price (under capitalism)? I advocate that drugs should be seen as any other product and not forced to work under the "black market".


When drugs are legalized do you think that users will grow their own drugs when it could be bought easy and cheap from a shop.

I did read your question. No, the tobacco smoker does not grow his own tobacco. I think he would prefer if he did, given the prices charged.

I think that people woiuld be happy to have the oppurtunity to grow their own products in their own gardens.

The arguments I make are only valid under a capitalist system. under a communist system most of what I say wouldn't be particularily relevant.

[Soviet power supreme]

That shit is bad for you. Everyone knows that.

So you think that the amount doesn't grow because people know it's bad for themselves.

Alcohol,cigarettes,cigars are bad for people.Why they are using them?
Everyone knows they are

and if they had always be illegal, would there be same amount of users?

[crazy comie]

You could ration marrjjuana.

The thing about ciggerets and splifs was becuse there is no proof that cannibis damedges your brain so the only thing that causes damedge from a cannibis splif is the smoke. Although the smoke of canibs is worse for you pepole ussually smoke more ciggeretts than splifs.

[canikickit]

So you think that the amount doesn't grow because people know it's bad for themselves.

I don't really know what you are trying to ask. Do I think more people will use heroin if they know it is bad for their health?

What I think is that the quantity of users of a drug so infamous as heroin will not be effected drastically by its legal status.
I think that if it were legalised, and more people went onto the drug, this would be balanced out by the fact that heroin users as a whole would be treated in a more humane fashion.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Just a small point, "canikickit"...



... a drug so infamous as heroin ...


Infamous: "Having an exceedingly bad reputation."
Synonyms: "Disreputable, ill-famed, notorious, base, vile, detestable."

Why do you think Heroin has this reputation comrade?

It is a menace!!!

[canikickit]

I know what the words I use mean. I have made it clear many times that I believe heroin is a bad choice.

[The Children of the Revolution]

And yet you would legalise it???

Knowing many people would experiment with such "a bad choice"???

Incredible... <_<

[Dhul Fiqar]

Why do you think Heroin has this reputation comrade? It is a menace&#33;&#33;&#33;

Why do you think Communism has such a bad reputation?? IT&#39;S EVIL&#33;&#33;

Why do you think the Soviet Union sucked so much balls according to almost everyone today? IT WAS EVIL&#33;&#33;&#33;

Why do you think Cuba has trade sanctions against it and limited diplomatic contact and pressure from the EU on human rights? THEY ARE EVIL&#33;&#33;&#33;

Why do you think this site gets attacked by right-wing people who happen to be in the majority in the world? BECAUSE WE ARE EVIL&#33;&#33;&#33;

That&#39;s right - popularity and public image equals reality. You said it - I believe it :rolleyes:

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 10 2003, 06:07 PM
And yet you would legalise it???

Knowing many people would experiment with such "a bad choice"???

Incredible... <_<
I think joining the army is a bad choice.

I think voting for a right-wing party is a bad choice.

I think driving an SUV is a bad choice.

I think drinking a bottle of vodka every day is a bad choice.

I think smoking cigarettes is a bad choice.

I think having children in today&#39;s overpopulated world instead of adopting is a bad choice.

I think a lot of things that people do are bad choices

That doesn&#39;t mean the government should take all choice away from us. Take some responsibility for your
OWN life - it&#39;s not the government&#39;s job to make sure what choices you make in life - because the choices we make are what DEFINES our lives. Without it we are robots.

--- G.

[The Children of the Revolution]

That&#39;s right - popularity and public image equals reality. You said it - I believe it&#33;


Hmmm, no need to get sarcastic... <_<

The perception of Communism and of Soviet Russia have been massively influenced by Western Capitalist propaganda. This is not to say that the public opinion has not been influenced by anti-drug propaganda; it obviously has. However, I think that most people would reach these conclusions anyhow. The USSR is percieved to be evil because the Western world has been overly exposed to it&#39;s bad side. And let&#39;s face it, under "Stalin and Co.", this bad side was remarkably self-evident.

With drugs though, there is no good side to balance the arguement. Drugs are bad&#33;&#33;&#33; The only benevolent use to which they can be put is in the medical field. And there are few objecters (even myself&#33;) to this. But in society in general, drugs serve no purpose - other than negative ones.

I think in this instance, the "public image" surrounding drugs is accurate. There is something to be said for popular perception after all - the British public think Blair is a wanker for going to war&#33;&#33;&#33; Amen brother&#33;&#33;&#33;

[The Children of the Revolution]

I think joining the army is a bad choice.

I think voting for a right-wing party is a bad choice.

etc etc...


[I happen to agree on most of these&#33;&#33;&#33;]

Well, to take some extreme examples...

What if someone were to take offence at a public speaker? Should they be allowed to "make the choice" to run at them and take a baseball bat to their head? Or to stalk them? Or to make malicious phone calls, death threats? Or if a brawl were to develop over a carelessly spilt drink in a tavern - would you allow someone the choice to carry a machette, or gun around with them?

Some "choices" have to be made for us. For our collective safety, not to infringe on our rights. No, we don&#39;t want to be robots... But at the same time, we don&#39;t want carnage on the streets. I am anti-authoritarian, but I fully support our current drug laws.

If you really must smoke weed or whatever, hell, emigrate to Holland. They&#39;ll welcome you with open arms i&#39;m sure :P

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 9 2003, 04:46 PM
You could ration marrjjuana.

The thing about ciggerets and splifs was becuse there is no proof that cannibis damedges your brain so the only thing that causes damedge from a cannibis splif is the smoke. Although the smoke of canibs is worse for you pepole ussually smoke more ciggeretts than splifs.
You can tell this guys a fan of the old MJ, he&#39;s living proof of what it does to you.

[Danton]

But in society in general, drugs serve no purpose - other than negative ones.

This is the guy who just named Hendrix&#39;s as his favourite music...

[canikickit]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 10 2003, 10:07 AM
Knowing many people would experiment with such "a bad choice"???
Yes, "The Children of the Revolution", you&#39;ve figured everything out. Well done&#33;&#33;&#33;
I still don&#39;t see why you feel that the numbers of users will jump so greatly.

The reason most people don&#39;t do heroin is because it is widely accepted as damaging health, the reason is not because it is illegal. Shit...you said it yourself:


However, I think that most people would reach these conclusions anyhow.

I think in this instance, the "public image" surrounding drugs is accurate. There is something to be said for popular perception

------------

The number of users probably would jump if heroin was legalised, but I don&#39;t think it would be particularily significant. However these new users (and the old ones also) would be able to live with a lot more dignity than users under the current system, medical assistance would be more readily at hand, and there would be no fear of any form of recriminations (not to mention entirely unjustified punishment) from the police.

Do you actually think the current system works? Is the situation for users improving? Is the amount of users decreasing? Do people not experiment with heroin as it is? When has prohibition ever worked?


But in society in general, drugs serve no purpose - other than negative ones.

Keeping them illegal hasn&#39;t exactly remedied this, has it?
The negative impacts could be more sensibly countered through regulation. Not by ignoring these unfortunates and actively encouraging the criminal element&#39;s involvement.


Should they be allowed to "make the choice" to run at them and take a baseball bat to their head? Or to stalk them? Or to make malicious phone calls, death threats? Or if a brawl were to develop over a carelessly spilt drink in a tavern - would you allow someone the choice to carry a machette, or gun around with them?

Extreme examples indeed. Extremely irrelevant. How do you compare direct violent involvement in someone&#39;s well-being with the personal choice to use heroin?


Some "choices" have to be made for us. For our collective safety, not to infringe on our rights.

I don&#39;t think "the bad guys" infringe on our rights for the sake of it, as you suggest.
How does a heroin user effect our collective safety, or cause carnage on the streets?


If you really must smoke weed or whatever, hell, emigrate to Holland.

Typical&#33; "If you don&#39;t like it, leave" - the calling phrase of conservatives everywhere.
Why not accept people smoking cannabis wherever they want?

[The Children of the Revolution]

This is the guy who just named Hendrix&#39;s as his favourite music...


Jimi Hendrix was a legend with or without drugs. It&#39;s not as if he purposely fed his addiction before every gig. It&#39;s a shame that you put his talent down to the influence of drugs - disrespectful and incorrect. Yes, I expect he may have indulged in the occasional illegal substance. But his musical talent did not stem from the use of them. And it was the ****ing drugs that cut his incredible career short. :angry:



... The reason most people don&#39;t do heroin is because it is widely accepted as damaging health ...


I never disputed this. But even if 99% of the population (of the UK) knows their stuff, that leaves over half a million potential addicts&#33;&#33;&#33; Addicts which the state will have to spend a small fortune on to put through rehabilitation&#33;&#33;&#33;



Do people not experiment with heroin as it is?


Undoubtadley. However, I believe that there are a significant number of people who don&#39;t simply because they can&#39;t find the stuff; or because of the drugs notoriety. Legalising the damned stuff would remove a psychological barrier to experimentation - therefore more people would be likely to experiment.



Is the situation for users improving?


Ye Gods, you actually sound like you care&#33; I mean, really care&#33;&#33;&#33; Shall we open "help-stations" on every corner? Hand out free crack if the addicts can&#39;t afford any? Para-drop needles and bong&#39;s (a new word for me, have I got the context right?) all over the country? This may be taking things a little far, but how would you cope with the massively increased demand for these medical services? Tax the stuff, like cigarettes? The world (you) has gone mad&#33;



... entirely unjustified punishment ...


You speak of punishments from the police being "highly unjustified"... What if drug use CAUSED a crime? Or if it&#39;s presence in the body made the extent of a crime worse? If, for example, an addict beat someone up whilst &#39;under the influence&#39;. Would the punishment be the same for a non-drug-related incident? And if not, doesn&#39;t that prove drugs are a danger to society? What kind of an example would a government that legalised the use of these drugs then be setting to it&#39;s people?



How do you compare direct violent involvement in someone&#39;s well-being with the personal choice to use heroin?


It&#39;s all to do with choice, comrade. Can I choose to carry an offensive weapon around? Can I choose to take actions which will have a negative effect on others? This includes both violence and health issues, my examples were extreme in order to illustrate a point... And please, no more suggesting alternative queues for busses...



If you really must smoke weed or whatever, hell, emigrate to Holland. They&#39;ll welcome you with open arms i&#39;m sure :P

This was intended as light relief. A joke. Of sorts. Which obviously failed, but never mind. Perhaps the years of opiate abuse you talked of (in another link somewhere) have dampened your senses somewhat... Best of luck with the rehabilitation, i&#39;ll make sure to drop a penny in your hat next time I walk past&#33; <This is also intended to be "light relief" - a cross between dry wit, observation, and sarcasm - i&#39;m sure you know what that is, comrade :P >

[canikickit]

I don&#39;t really think we&#39;re comrades.


Jimi Hendrix was a legend with or without drugs.

That&#39;s nothing more than speculation.
Perhaps Jimi would have committed suicide years earlier had it not been for the drugs which helped him get through the bullhit of life. Who knows? The fact is, Jimi did drugs and that fed into the person he was. And he was a great person.


It&#39;s not as if he purposely fed his addiction before every gig.

hahahaha&#33; Yes he did&#33; Supposedly he used to put LSD under his headscarves to allow them seep into his brain over the course of the concert. Sweet, eh?


And it was the ****ing drugs that cut his incredible career short.

Yeah, sleeping tablets. Do you think they should be illegal?


Ye Gods, you actually sound like you care&#33; I mean, really care&#33;&#33;&#33; Shall we open "help-stations" on every corner? Hand out free crack if the addicts can&#39;t afford any? Para-drop needles and bong&#39;s (a new word for me, have I got the context right?) all over the country?


Hmmm, no need to get sarcastic...

Right.


Legalising the damned stuff would remove a psychological barrier to experimentation - therefore more people would be likely to experiment.

Yep. But all these experimenters would be in far greater situations than current addicts. It balances out.


Tax the stuff, like cigarettes? The world (you) has gone mad&#33;

Obviously there would be taxation of some sort.
I am not the world.


ou speak of punishments from the police being "highly unjustified"... What if drug use CAUSED a crime?

How could drug use cause a crime?
Regardless, if you examine the context I said that in, I think it is obvious that I was referring to punishment for drug use. What is the justification for punishment for drug use? What is the justification for punishment for drug use?


If, for example, an addict beat someone up whilst &#39;under the influence&#39;. Would the punishment be the same for a non-drug-related incident? And if not, doesn&#39;t that prove drugs are a danger to society? What kind of an example would a government that legalised the use of these drugs then be setting to it&#39;s people?

It is not the place of the government to set example. It is the duty of the government to fuck off and mind its own business.

If an addict was to beat someone up while under the influence of drugs, they should be punished for beating someone up. The same way that someone who beats someone up while under the influence of anger, should be punished for beating someone up.


It&#39;s all to do with choice, comrade. Can I choose to carry an offensive weapon around? Can I choose to take actions which will have a negative effect on others?

You can choose to do so. It should be against the law however. Take note of the fact that heroin use does not have a direct negative effect on others.


This was intended as light relief. A joke. Of sorts. Which obviously failed, but never mind.

The reason your joke failed so miserably was due to the conservative attitude it betrayed.
It implys that people are merely self-centred, and that if I don&#39;t like things your way, I can fuck off.

[BuyOurEverything]

I never disputed this. But even if 99% of the population (of the UK) knows their stuff, that leaves over half a million potential addicts&#33;&#33;&#33; Addicts which the state will have to spend a small fortune on to put through rehabilitation&#33;&#33;&#33;

I really don&#39;t know how you came up with those numbers but assuming they are correct, are you implying that more than 99% of the population now knows about drugs?


Ye Gods, you actually sound like you care&#33; I mean, really care&#33;&#33;&#33; Shall we open "help-stations" on every corner? Hand out free crack if the addicts can&#39;t afford any? Para-drop needles and bong&#39;s (a new word for me, have I got the context right?) all over the country? This may be taking things a little far, but how would you cope with the massively increased demand for these medical services? Tax the stuff, like cigarettes? The world (you) has gone mad&#33;

I pretty much agree with all of the stuff you&#39;ve written (obviously not airdropoping, but I believe needles should be given out for free and the part about bongs, well that&#39;s just stupid.) I fully support giving free drugs to adicts. It would stop funding drug cartels and would vastly reduce muggings and thefts. Do you really think somebody would become a crack addicts so they can get free drugs? As for giving out needles, they already do this in many places and it helps stop AIDS quite well. Or do you think that drug users deserve to get AIDS? Well only the poor ones, the rich ones can afford clean needles. I&#39;ve heard that alot: AIDS cures drug addicts, right along with AIDS cures fags. What&#39;s wrong with taxing it? We tax alcohol and cigarettes to pay for the health costs. Right now, drug use creates high health costs and we have no tax revenue from them to offset it. Not to mention, if drugs were legal, there would be far fewer ODs because everybody would know the dosage and potency of what they&#39;re taking. They would also have pure drugs and clean parafinalia which would further reduce hospitalization. Why is this mad?

[The Children of the Revolution]

It is the duty of the government to fuck off and mind its own business.


Hmmm. Not where I come from. The Government has to exist for a purpose. Locking up addicts seems like a worthwhile venture to me. Keeps Blunkett off the streets anyhow :P



hahahaha&#33; Yes he did&#33; Supposedly he used to put LSD under his headscarves to allow them seep into his brain over the course of the concert.


Really? I didn&#39;t know that... You learn something new every day&#33;



I am not the world.


One would never guess. You are one of the most opinionated, loud, and WRONG people on the site&#33;&#33;&#33; (2nd behind me. Apart from the WRONG bit...)



... the same way that someone who beats someone up while under the influence of anger ...


I wasn&#39;t aware that there was an alternative??? Unless you go round beating people up for fun... You don&#39;t, do you? Do you? Oh Lord, have mercy, save this misguided fool from the torments of Hell&#33; (See? Compassion&#33; This is elaborate rehabilitation&#33; :) )

This, in case you hadn&#39;t noticed, is my tactical retreat.

I have given up trying to "debate" on this topic. It has become a farce; neither (any) of us are going to be convinced by the other&#39;s points. I maintain that the UK&#39;s drug laws are fair and just... As those of you arguing the opposite will no doubt dispute. But hey, everyone has their opinions, right comrades?

(We are comrades my friend. Nay more, we are brothers&#33;&#33;&#33; Call this a &#39;sibling rivalry&#39;.)

No offence meant to anyone.

[canikickit]

Locking up addicts seems like a worthwhile venture to me.

You make me sick.


You are one of the most opinionated, loud, and WRONG people on the site&#33;&#33;&#33;

hahaha, no I&#39;m not.


I have given up trying to "debate" on this topic. It has become a farce

I don&#39;t really think you were debating. All you were saying is that drugs are bad. Everyone knows that.

There are logical reasons why the legalisation of heroin would help the situation of users of the drug.
there are not logical reasons why putting drugs into your veins should result in being locked up.

You make me sick.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 10 2003, 08:33 PM

Well, to take some extreme examples...

What if someone were to take offence at a public speaker? Should they be allowed to "make the choice" to run at them and take a baseball bat to their head? Or to stalk them? Or to make malicious phone calls, death threats? Or if a brawl were to develop over a carelessly spilt drink in a tavern - would you allow someone the choice to carry a machette, or gun around with them?

Some "choices" have to be made for us. For our collective safety, not to infringe on our rights.
I hope for your sake that you see a clear difference between harming yourself and harming others - because otherwise we have to start over from the beginning =D

I see no moral right for the government to step in and stop other people from making choices that harm no one but themselves.

--- G.

[canikickit]

But they&#39;re addicts&#33;&#33;&#33; They should be locked up&#33;&#33;&#33;

[The Children of the Revolution]

I don&#39;t really think you were debating.


Same here.



You make me sick.


The feeling is mutual, I assure you.



I hope for your sake that you see a clear difference between harming yourself and harming others


It is only by harming (or potentially harming) others that addicts get caught. (e.g. nickin&#39; stuff to fuel a habit, leaving their s*** lying around.) If they want to harm themselves, fine. I hope they&#39;re good enough at it to avoid detection and contact with anyone / anything for eternity. (Or a very very very long time)

I intend to do neither. :)

Peace and Love...

[BuyOurEverything]

Thanks for ignoring my arguments


Hmmm. Not where I come from. The Government has to exist for a purpose. Locking up addicts seems like a worthwhile venture to me. Keeps Blunkett off the streets anyhow

You&#39;re right, and while we&#39;re at it, let&#39;s lock up the poor people so they don&#39;t dirty up our streets. And cancer patients because they don&#39;t contribute to society.


I wasn&#39;t aware that there was an alternative??? Unless you go round beating people up for fun... You don&#39;t, do you? Do you?

There are many alternatives: for fun, like you mentioned, theft (ie mugging), intimidation, to shut someone up, to get information. The fact that canikickit doesn&#39;t beat up people for fun does not mean that anger is the only reason to beat someone up.


But hey, everyone has their opinions, right comrades?

Yes, but some of them are wrong.


It is only by harming (or potentially harming) others that addicts get caught. (e.g. nickin&#39; stuff to fuel a habit, leaving their s*** lying around.)

Those things could be easily stopped by adopting my suggestion (actually YOUR suggestions) but wait, that&#39;s
mad&#33;


If they want to harm themselves, fine. I hope they&#39;re good enough at it to avoid detection and contact with anyone / anything for eternity. (Or a very very very long time)

Why should they have to avoid detection or contact with anyone?

[The Children of the Revolution]

Thanks for ignoring my arguments


No problem. I thought I&#39;d give it a go, seeing as it&#39;s all you guys have been doing... Besides, if you read the message, that was meant to be my last post on this thread.



Those things could be easily stopped by adopting my suggestion (actually YOUR suggestions)


Hmmmm. How is legalising heroin going to make addicts any richer? Even if the drugs came down in price, it would just delay the eventual bankruptcy... Then they&#39;d be back to "nickin&#39; stuff" again.



Why should they have to avoid detection or contact with anyone?


Because the majority of people find a bumbling, stoned, foaming-at-the-mouth, crazy addict injecting him/herself full of s*** on a street offensive. And dangerous. And a menace&#33;&#33;&#33; And, might I add, these sentiments are both accurate and justified. Now shut up everyone&#33;&#33;&#33; (This includes me) Let us bury this thread forever&#33;&#33;&#33; <_<

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 11 2003, 07:58 AM
It is only by harming (or potentially harming) others that addicts get caught. (e.g. nickin&#39; stuff to fuel a habit, leaving their s*** lying around.) If they want to harm themselves, fine. I hope they&#39;re good enough at it to avoid detection and contact with anyone / anything for eternity. (Or a very very very long time)

I intend to do neither. :)

Peace and Love...
Eh, that is EXACTLY the argument that WE are making - not you.

Why be a thief and a menace if you have a steady supply of drugs that cost the government next to nothing to provide you with?

And the fact that you seem to believe the only time drug users get in trouble is when they start attacking innocent civilians just shows one thing: you have NO idea how the real world works and you don&#39;t even read the newspapers. I have friends that have been repeatedly arrested for having a gram or less of Cannabis in their pocket in a public place just minding their own damned business. But they were young. They had long hair and looked like hippies. Obviously they were about to kill their grandmothers for their next fix - thank god some cop searched them and found a gram of plant matter.

Get real, man.

--- G.

[crazy comie]

weather you harm your body is your choice not some one elses

[Soviet power supreme]

I don&#39;t really know what you are trying to ask. Do I think more people will use heroin if they know it is bad for their health?


No

People doesn&#39;t use it because it is bad for their health.

[/QUOTE]So you think that the amount doesn&#39;t grow because people know it&#39;s bad for themselves.


Sorry my mistake

Do you think that the amount of users doesn&#39;t grow because people know it&#39;s bad for themselves?

I think that if it were legalised, and more people went onto the drug, this would be balanced out by the fact that heroin users as a whole would be treated in a more humane fashion. [QUOTE]

Wouldn&#39;t this just encourage people to use drugs?

[BuyOurEverything]

No problem. I thought I&#39;d give it a go, seeing as it&#39;s all you guys have been doing... Besides, if you read the message, that was meant to be my last post on this thread.

I haven&#39;t ignored your arguments, I was responding to them. Are you going to respon to mine?


Hmmmm. How is legalising heroin going to make addicts any richer? Even if the drugs came down in price, it would just delay the eventual bankruptcy... Then they&#39;d be back to "nickin&#39; stuff" again.

If adicts got it for free or cheap, they would have no need to jack a car or mug a person to pay for their next fix

[The Children of the Revolution]

Damn you to hell&#33; I don&#39;t want to reply to this thread any more&#33; But you&#39;re talking such rubbish that I feel compelled to... Please stop now comrade&#33;



If adicts got it for free or cheap, they would have no need to jack a car or mug a person to pay for their next fix.


If drugs were free or cheap, would that not lead to an explosion in drug experimentation? Surely you can concede this point? Or are the free drugs only for addicts? Inequality for all under "BuyOurEverything"&#33; Benefits for addicts&#33; Cuts in public services for the rest&#33; Hmmmm, won&#39;t win you much support...



I have friends that have been repeatedly arrested for having a gram or less of Cannabis in their pocket in a public place just minding their own damned business. But they were young. They had long hair and looked like hippies. Obviously they were about to kill their grandmothers for their next fix - thank god some cop searched them and found a gram of plant matter.


I can&#39;t say I&#39;ve shared in your experiences there comrade... Are you a Yankee or a Brit? I am young (18), have long hair, and look like a 60&#39;s hippie (barring the glazed over eyes) - plus I&#39;ve lived in London and Bristol. And yet I&#39;ve never been searched for drugs. Once. And neither have any of my friends. Perhaps things are different where you come from...

Peace and Love, man :D

[Dhul Fiqar]

You have obviously not been to many protests - or you are the luckiest man alive. But that is not the point.

What you are claiming is RIDICULOUS - absolutely RIDICULOUS. Are you saying that no drug user in England is ever put in jail unless he physically harms another person? That is the biggest load of fucking crap I ever heard - you are really starting to seriously embarrass yourself.

People GET ARRESTED FOR SIMPLE POSESSION ALL THE TIME - IN ANY COUNTRY&#33;&#33;&#33; Try getting pulled over in the evening with a black person or two in your car for a random sobriety test. You can bet your ass everyone is getting searched, they have "probable cause" - same goes for almost any Western country. And outside the west - they don&#39;t give a shit - just put a bullet in your head or throw you in a gulag.

--- G.

[The Children of the Revolution]

What you are claiming is RIDICULOUS - absolutely RIDICULOUS. Are you saying that no drug user in England is ever put in jail unless he physically harms another person?


I really don&#39;t know where this came from... I wasn&#39;t saying that at all. You&#39;ve confused me. Calm down, explain your point of view SLOWLY and coherently, and i&#39;ll give you an answer.



And outside the west - they don&#39;t give a shit - just put a bullet in your head or throw you in a gulag.


I find that incredibly hard to believe. Not a bad idea though, wonder if Blunkett&#39;s thought of it?

[Dhul Fiqar]

It is only by harming (or potentially harming) others that addicts get caught.


am young (18), have long hair, and look like a 60&#39;s hippie (barring the glazed over eyes) - plus I&#39;ve lived in London and Bristol. And yet I&#39;ve never been searched for drugs. Once. And neither have any of my friends.


That&#39;s where it came from ;)

--- G.

[The Children of the Revolution]

It is only by harming (or potentially harming) others that addicts get caught.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you are claiming is RIDICULOUS - absolutely RIDICULOUS. Are you saying that no drug user in England is ever put in jail unless he physically harms another person?


Yes. True. There are many forms of "harm" - not just physical. (Although in the case of drugs, most harm is indeed physical.) How would anyone get caught injecting themselves with heroin - unless he/she leaves a needle lying around? How would somebody be found smoking marijuana if no-one was there to report the smell? If you are searched and drugs are found, there is the potential for those drugs to be used in a way harmful to others. Whether or not you believe that one should be allowed to carry drugs, you cannot deny deny that there is "the potential" to be caught. That was my point.



That is the biggest load of fucking crap I ever heard


I could say the same about your arguements, but hey; no need to swear... If you must use offensive language, how about employing a "bleeper"? You c**t. :P

[BuyOurEverything]

If drugs were free or cheap, would that not lead to an explosion in drug experimentation? Surely you can concede this point? Or are the free drugs only for addicts? Inequality for all under "BuyOurEverything"&#33; Benefits for addicts&#33; Cuts in public services for the rest&#33; Hmmmm, won&#39;t win you much support...

That&#39;s correct, only for addicts. I don&#39;t see you campaigning outside a hospital about the &#39;inequality&#39; of only giving medical care to sick people. If the government manufactured the drugs itself, it would cost a fraction of what it does now on the street. I&#39;ve heard that a pill of, say, extasy only costs a couple of cents to make but goes for &#036;20 or so on the street. If someone has information about this, please share.

[The Children of the Revolution]

That&#39;s correct, only for addicts.


How on Earth would you regulate this? Only let people get cheap drugs if they have needle marks on their arms? If they are stoned when they arrive at the clinic? (Or whatever you wish to call it)



I don&#39;t see you campaigning outside a hospital about the &#39;inequality&#39; of only giving medical care to sick people.


What a pathetic example. What does anybody stand to gain by pretending to be ill? Why would you want to be sick? Medical care is given to make people better. This will not work on someone with a clean bill of health&#33; The giving out of cheap drugs is the perfect excuse for people wishing to experiment with them. And how would you define an addiction? The system would be open to massive abuse, misuse, and fraud. I cannot believe that, even if we assume drugs have been legalised, they would be given away&#33; That is asking for trouble... You certainly don&#39;t see alcoholics getting free pints at their local, do you?

Utter madness&#33;

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 12 2003, 06:43 AM

How would somebody be found smoking marijuana if no-one was there to report the smell? If you are searched and drugs are found, there is the potential for those drugs to be used in a way harmful to others. Whether or not you believe that one should be allowed to carry drugs, you cannot deny deny that there is "the potential" to be caught. That was my point.

"Potential to be caught" ??? That is in no way your point - that is a bold faced lie. You said "potential to harm others" - at least be honest about your vitriolic lies in the past when they are shown to you black on white.

NEWS FLASH : Smoking marijuana is not the only thing against the law&#33; Actually posessing it is ALSO against the law&#33; Thus one only needs to carry it at the wrong place and the wrong time to be arrested.

--- G.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Actually posessing it is ALSO against the law&#33;


Well why on Earth would you posess the stuff if you weren&#39;t going to smoke it? Be reasonable... Thus, possession of the drug implies use at some undetermined point in the future - therefore potentially endangering people - therefore legitimising the actions of the police in taking it away.

My point earlier, however poorly phrased, (remember, I just wanted to stop posting on this f****** thread) was that drug use was only picked up on - and subsequently punished - if there was evidence. Call this physical evidence - a needle, or fumes hanging around - or circumstantial evidence; the possession of drugs being the case in point. Any of this evidence proves that drugs were in use. Whether you are carring them or smoking them, the point is that they&#39;re there. And they pose a risk to society in general. They have the potential to harm others. Which means they are "caught". And subsequently punished.

[BuyOurEverything]

What a pathetic example. What does anybody stand to gain by pretending to be ill? Why would you want to be sick?

Well, food and a warm bed come to mind. Also, drugs&#33; Morphine, demerol, the hundreds of other drugs used to treat sick people...


Medical care is given to make people better. This will not work on someone with a clean bill of health&#33;

You can&#39;t be serious. You think a heroine adict has a &#39;clean bill of health?&#39;


And how would you define an addiction?

Addiction is a recognized disease.


You certainly don&#39;t see alcoholics getting free pints at their local, do you?


The system would be open to massive abuse, misuse, and fraud. I cannot believe that, even if we assume drugs have been legalised, they would be given away&#33;

A medical proffesional can tell if someone is a drug addict. I also can&#39;t see many recreational drug users pumping themselves full of drugs and pretending to be addicts over an extended period of time and going to a doctor just to get a substance for free that they could get perfectly legally and the store.


That is asking for trouble... You certainly don&#39;t see alcoholics getting free pints at their local, do you?

How is helping addicts asking for trouble? You have a twisted view of drug addiction. Serious alcoholism, if it was harming a person and their life would be dealt with just like drug addiction. I don&#39;t see alcoholics getting free alcohol for two reasons. One, cultural bias. Alcoholism is somewhat accepted in our society and most people don&#39;t treat it as a disease. Two, cost. Most people with a decent job don&#39;t have to knock over a convinience store to afford a 6 pack. And poor and homeless people, well nobody cares about them.

[canikickit]

Thus, possession of the drug implies use at some undetermined point in the future - therefore potentially endangering people

How?


Whether you are carring them or smoking them, the point is that they&#39;re there. And they pose a risk to society in general. They have the potential to harm others.

How?

[crazy comie]

To fund clinics you could tax drugs.

[Sabocat]

Here&#39;s a nice example of what happens when draconian marijuana laws are enforced.

Over a dozen police officers in the town of Goose Creek, S.C., stormed into a crowded high school hallway on the morning of November 5, forcing 107 students down on their stomachs at gunpoint.

Read more...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/.../raid-n12.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/raid-n12.shtml)

[Sabocat]

Here&#39;s a nice example of what happens when draconian marijuana laws are enforced.

Over a dozen police officers in the town of Goose Creek, S.C., stormed into a crowded high school hallway on the morning of November 5, forcing 107 students down on their stomachs at gunpoint.

Read more...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/.../raid-n12.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/raid-n12.shtml)

[crazy comie]

Shit
the police there are a load of dickheads

[Dhul Fiqar]

Children of the revolution: So you think drug users only get in trouble because they use drugs?? NO FUCKING SHIT&#33;&#33;&#33; WOW&#33;&#33;&#33; THE INSIGHT&#33;&#33;

You are beyond all help - you talk in circles and turn your own arguments inside out when they are challenged. Leave this thread to avoid further embarrassment.

--- G.

[The Children of the Revolution]

So you think drug users only get in trouble because they use drugs??


Yes. I don&#39;t quite understand what the fuss is about. Addicts use drugs; thereby endangering the health of others. If they are blatantly endangering others, i.e. by smoking / injecting in public, then all well and good. Lock the buggers up. If they are carrying the stuff, they are posing a similar risk - just not as obvious. Therefore lock the buggers up for slightly less time. If you smoke / inject in private and no incriminating evidence is found... No health risk... You are not found out.



NO FUCKING SHIT&#33;&#33;&#33; WOW&#33;&#33;&#33; THE INSIGHT&#33;&#33;


Well it seems necessary to explain things such as this to you. I note that you haven&#39;t actually raised a point in ages; you seem bent on insulting mine. You may not agree with my views on drugs - I don&#39;t agree with yours - but insults are unnecessary.



You are beyond all help


I&#39;m not the one who needs help, comrade. It&#39;s those blasted junkies; they need to be taught a lesson. Scum of the Earth. The slimy buggers. Ghastly habit, I say. Shoot &#39;em all. Firing squad at dawn and whatnot. Pip pip&#33;

[canikickit]

Addicts use drugs; thereby endangering the health of others.

How?



If they are carrying the stuff, they are posing a similar risk - just not as obvious.

What risk is that?


If you smoke / inject in private and no incriminating evidence is found

Under what circumstances would something be found? Why would you suggest that people who use in private would be in a situation where evidence may be be found?


It&#39;s those blasted junkies; they need to be taught a lesson.

For what, becoming addicted to something? The fools&#33;&#33;&#33;

Regulation is the key.

[The Children of the Revolution]

"Addicts use drugs; thereby endangering the health of others."

How?


We have already been through this. Marijuana smoke, Heroin Needles etc. etc...



What risk is that?


See above.



For what, becoming addicted to something? The fools&#33;&#33;&#33;


Again, you seem to have missed the point. This was an attempt at irony or humour. The "Pip pip" bit should have done it, or so I thought...

[canikickit]

We have already been through this. Marijuana smoke, Heroin Needles etc. etc...

Yes, and we disagreed. Smoke from cannabis is going to dissapate quickly, and will only cause damage if you were enclosed in a small space with it, or perhaps a bus queue...

Heroin needles would not be left around if there were adequate facilities available. The decriminalisation in itself would go a long way towards that, and it would merely take some initiative to set up a few more places to help these sick people out.

If the drug was no longer illegal, drug users would not be forced to shoot up and get the hell out of there as quickly as possible. It&#39;s difficult to clean up after yourself when you have to look over your shoulder for the cops at every angle.

You advocate locking people up in prisons for the having potential to leave a needle around. It would be more sensible to arrange an area where the needles could be used out of harms way.

Regardless, you can&#39;t charge people for the potential to commit harm. You might as well lock up people who are using rakes - if they left one of those things around, they&#39;d take out your eye.

By the logic you are using, alcohol users should be imprisoned because they may or may not drive cars and crash while drunk.


See above.

I can see above, and it makes no sense. What if someone intends smoking in private and needs to transport it from one private place to another, why should the police have the right to search the person and take their property? In case they walk by someone and that person inhales and nostril full of cannabis smoke? The horror...the horror.


Again, you seem to have missed the point. This was an attempt at irony or humour.

No, I did not miss the point. The point is that once again, your attempt at humour failed because it reveals your deep-seated conservative nature. You have made references to locking up drug users, and "drug users getting what they deserve". You see them as less than yourself, high and mighty in your university.

[crazy comie]

Children of the revolution your mad

[The Children of the Revolution]

Children of the revoulotion your mad


Hmmmm. Would that be mad as in "Crazy Comie" mad?

Or mad as in "legalise-dangerous-drugs-now" mad?

Or perhaps "create-seperate-bus-queues-for-addicts" mad?

And what, pray tell, is a "revoulotion" anyway?

Revou Lotion&#33; Miracle Hair growth - one splash of this, and you&#39;ll look like che&#33; GUARANTEED&#33;

Moron.

[canikickit]

I noticed you criticising Dhul Fiqar above for "unnecessary insults".

So, do you wish tp try and clarify your "logic"? Or are you realising your mistakes?

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

My local stores dont stock revo lotion :( Can i mail order it? Will it make me smart like crazy comie with 1 &#39;m&#39;?

[The Children of the Revolution]

My local stores dont stock revo lotion ... Can i mail order it?


Yes, certainly, my good man. Send £10 my way, and the first bottle&#39;s yours&#33;&#33; I&#39;ll even throw in a novelty towel, for application of the lotion&#33;&#33;

AND, if you buy in bulk, a FREE electric razor with every third bottle purchased&#33;&#33;

You can&#39;t say fairer than that&#33;&#33;



I noticed you criticising Dhul Fiqar above for "unnecessary insults".


Indeed I did. My insult is perfectly valid, since it was provoked. Plus, it contained no offensive language. What&#39;s more, I even managed to create some sarcastic humour&#33;&#33; Which can only be good. :P

What is a "Dhul Fiqar" anyhow? Why the "q" and no "u"? [Serious question]

[canikickit]

No plans to reply to any points in the next while then?

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Yes, certainly, my good man. Send £10 my way, and the first bottle&#39;s yours&#33;&#33; I&#39;ll even throw in a novelty towel, for application of the lotion&#33;&#33;

this novelty towel u speak of, is it of a reasonable size or is it just a gloryfide flannel? The electric razors just plain ironic, grow more hair and shave some off&#33; :P
perhaps many people on this board would like a needle so they can inject it into their balding heads? on behalf of canikickit -can it be smoked?

[The Children of the Revolution]

this novelty towel u speak of, is it of a reasonable size or is it just a gloryfide flannel?


Oh a reasonable size, have no doubt&#33;&#33; Made of Egyptian Cotton too, a real snatch&#33;&#33;

And yes, a needle is also available; in one of three fantastic colours: "Blood Red", "Psychadelic", or "Deep Blue".

What&#39;s more, just for our obsessive smokers, we are introducing "Revo - weedo - lotion". All the revitalising power of "Revo Lotion" in a handy smokeable package&#33;&#33; Take "Revo Lotion" everywhere&#33;&#33; You never know when you&#39;ll need it...

[Disclaimer]
"Revo Lotion" Inc. accepts no responsibility for personal injury sustained whilst injecting or smoking "Revo Lotion". Keep out of reach of young children. "Revo Lotion" should not be used by pregnant mothers, epileptics, anyone with an ounce of common sense, or whilst operating heavy machinery.

Luckily for you "canikickit", these conditions do not apply to you&#33;&#33; Apply now&#33;&#33;

[Soul Rebel]

Children of the Revolution- people are not jailed just for drug use. The us system of punishing drug users is pretty much fucked. People are not only arrested for the drugs they use but by the race they are. This is noticable in the jail time of crack users and cocaine users. What is the difference between crack and cocaine? Its the same drug but in a different form and is used by opposite races. Blacks tend to use crack more and whites use cocaine more. Who do you think spends more time in jail? Crack users spend more time in jail than cocaine users,not because crack is more dangerous than cocaine but because it is used more by Blacks.

There is no reason really to jail drug users. Most are stuck in jail for long periods of time without ever having committed a violent crime. This is a waste of jail space and money. If people were so concerned about the "drug problem" then they should consider developing drug rehab programs that are successful and make people want to clean up. This means empowering the users and offering them a choice- of getting clean or not. You cant force someone into getting clean, they have to decide for themselves.

[canikickit]

"The Children of the Revolution",
At least you&#39;ve stopped pretending to reply to my posts and now have made it plain for all to see that you don&#39;t know what you are talking about.

[redstar2000]

I suggest that discussing anything with "Tcotr" is probably a waste of time.

As a Christian, his real objection to drugs is that they give pleasure to people...that&#39;s known as sin.

His "non-theological" arguments are so weak and absurd that it&#39;s clear that they are not really intended to convince anyone who doesn&#39;t already "understand" that any pleasure not specifically endorsed by "God" is inherently "wrong".

I suspect a strong current of clerical fascism in his overall outlook on things...hence his fondness for massive imprisonment. The fact that people of color suffer disproportionately probably doesn&#39;t bother him either.

He is really a very good candidate for caging in Opposing Ideologies...but the way those debates have been going lately, he&#39;d probably "beat the rap".

Too bad.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

I suggest that discussing anything with "Tcotr" is probably a waste of time.


Well you would. We happen to have diametrically opposed views on Religion. You obviously think that because of these views I am incapable of discussing anything else; I am, after all, a "clerical fascist".



His "non-theological" arguments are so weak and absurd ...


I thought the same about yours. There&#39;s a reason why drugs still aren&#39;t legal in this country. The public does not want to see heroin, crack, cocaine etc floating around on the streets&#33;&#33; Surely they&#39;re not all "Clerical Fascists"? And my objection is not that the drugs give "pleasure" to people, (a fairly loose definition of pleasure must be implied here...) but the opposite - they harm people. Including thoses who don&#39;t wish to be harmed.

[crazy comie]

sorry typo.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 16 2003, 01:13 PM
sorry typo.
in fact you forgot to write anything.

[crazy comie]

i ment about saying renoulotion insted of revolution

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 16 2003, 09:13 AM
sorry typo.
big fuckin&#39; typo, that. :D

what ever happened to the real arguement here?

[Mr Mojo Risin]

18 pages later, I think its time to put this old dog down. This thread&#39;s lived a nice long life, but how many times can you rehash an argument for or against legalization?

[Rastafari]

and have their really been any "arguements" the last 10 pages?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Mr Mojo Risin&#39;@Nov 20 2003, 12:17 AM
rehash an argument for or against legalization?
Rehash, lol.

[Mano Dayak]

better say resmoke...

[canikickit]

People should be allowed to smoke cannabis because it is not the concern of the police or government what we do with ourselves, provided we do not interact with others in ways they do not appreciate.

If someone sits in their house all day inhaling smoke from substances procured from a plant and holding that smoke in their lungs, it in no way effects those he encounters in his life any more adversely than it would effect them if that person sat in their house drinking tea all day. If someone commits crimes which do negatively and directly impact on on others&#39; lives, they should be persecuted for those infractions, but to punish someone for potential is ludicrous.

If a man catches his wife cheating on him, should he be charged with the potential murder of the man his wife is having an affair with?

Shouting about how heroin is "a menace" does not constitute a valid argument*. It only serves to confirm one&#39;s reactionary mindset.

*No matter how many exclamation marks you include.

[Rastafari]

and besides, I could arrest any one here (myself included) for poisoning my ass. The Greenhouse effect, baby, and it&#39;s taking us all down.

[crazy comie]

How does marjjuana afect the green house gases

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I doubt the smoking of mary jane has much impact on the environment on a global scale, although it does make your house smell a bit.

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 21 2003, 12:09 PM
How does marjjuana afect the green house gases
it doesn&#39;t, but if you are saying that Marijuana smoke is poisoning everyone, shouldn&#39;t it be equally fair to shit down all factories and stop all transportation?

[Mr Mojo Risin]

shit them all down&#33;&#33;
I agree, the amount of smoke produced is miniscule, and there is so much more smoke produced by tobacco smoking, but nobody says anything about that.

[crazy comie]

pepole are thinking about new regulations on tobbaco smoking

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Absolutely&#33; I am 100% behind the banning of smoking of cigarettes&#33; These damn companies even put nicotene in their cigarettes in order to hook users to get more money out of them. The only reason they are still around is because they are taxed very highly by the govt.

[Rastafari]

The only reason they are still around is because they are taxed very highly by the gov&#39;t

you lost me here. how does putting an excise tax or any kind of tax on something make it more sucessful?

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

It makes the government want to keep them legal more, due to the fact that they get such a large amount of capital from people.

[SgtPepper369]

For some reason I think cigarettes are disgusting. But with weed I have no problem. Maybe thats why Rastafari discouraged the use of Tobbaco but weed was "the weed of wisdom". But you don&#39;t really get anything out of cigarettes... accept lung cancer. And as long as it is controlled and you aren&#39;t driving while high. You should be able to smoke as much grass as you want.

[redstar2000]

I am 100% behind the banning of smoking of cigarettes&#33;

Oh?

You want to ban my drug and legalize your drug.

Well, fuck you very much&#33; If that&#39;s the case, then I&#39;ll support shooting all you fucking pot-head bastards&#33;

See where that line of "reasoning" gets you?

The only rational position is to legalize all drugs of choice.

Anything less lands you in the shit.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 10:31 PM
Absolutely&#33; I am 100% behind the banning of smoking of cigarettes&#33; These damn companies even put nicotene in their cigarettes in order to hook users to get more money out of them. The only reason they are still around is because they are taxed very highly by the govt.
and you don&#39;t seem to think that it&#39;d be companies very similar to/the same ones handing out your legalized spliffery?

I think what you&#39;ll see when it is finally legalized is that the same draconian measures are taken to hide the facts...for a while

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

To ban cigs, but legalise weed is just crazy talk. Contrary to you rs2000 i believe that the only option is to ban all drugs that arent for medicinal purposes.

[Bolshevika]

Marijuana has no positive use in society. Ban it and all other drugs.

[canikickit]

Smoking cannabis is fun. Fun is a benifit to society.

Do you advocate banning passtimes in general, or just the ones that scare you?

[The Children of the Revolution]

[b]
Fun is a benifit to society.


What about the dirty perv who hangs around primary schools playgrounds? Who thinks looking at young children and thinking dark thoughts is fun? Or worse, acts on his satanic fantasies? This (for him) is fun...

Therefore is a benefit to society?

Don&#39;t be silly.

[redstar2000]

Marijuana has no positive use in society. Ban it and all other drugs.

Yes, that&#39;s the logically consistent position.

No marijuana and no tobacco. No alcohol. No coffee or tea.

No sleeping pills or pain-killers except as prescribed by a doctor. No aspirin.

The complete victory of secular Mormonism...called, by virtue of a terminological error, "socialism".

And, as a consequence of this neo-puritanical nightmare, people everywhere will look back on capitalism as "a golden age"...and do their best to bring it back as quickly as they can.

What a "brilliant strategy".

Or, in my opinion, what fucking idiocy&#33;

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[BuyOurEverything]

What about the dirty perv who hangs around primary schools playgrounds? Who thinks looking at young children and thinking dark thoughts is fun?

You forgot the part where you explained how that was bad.


Or worse, acts on his satanic fantasies? This (for him) is fun...

Satanic? Your choice of terminology reveals alot about your position. Anyways, if he did in fact rape a small child, that would harm the child, and so, would be illegal.

[The Children of the Revolution]

You forgot the part where you explained how that was bad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your choice of terminology reveals alot about your position


Goodness me, you&#39;re not serious? Looney&#33; I have no problem whatsoever in declaring my position: Pervs are BAD&#33; Intolerably so. They should be imprisoned and forced to watch endless repeats of "Jerry Springer" or "Catchphrase" or other similar trash. They ARE satanic practices and should be treated as such.



... if he did in fact rape a small child, that would harm the child, and so, would be illegal.


So if someone smokes a joint in public, and "harms" someone in the process, this is therefore illegal? Or if someone injects themselves and discards the needle only for a child to come across it - thereby "harming" themselves - this is illegal? Well good, I&#39;m glad that&#39;s sorted...

[Bolshevika]

Yes, that&#39;s the logically consistent position.

Why thank you Red Star :D

No sleeping pills or pain-killers except as prescribed by a doctor. No aspirin.

Tabacco is fine because it does not debilitate you mentally. You can smoke and still be an able worker. However, drugs like alcohol, marijuana, opiums, cocaine, etc debilitate you mentally and stop you from completing your revolutionary tasks.

There is a difference between recrational drugs people do for no reason and drugs people use to live a normal life. For example, what&#39;s worse than not being able to sleep? Or having a horrible pain? Or awful headache?

You are using a confusing tactic. It is different when a bunch of teenagers decide to "get stoned" before their classes and a person in pain who needs this drug. Than it should be considered, this medical marijuana.

Another thing, I hate it completely when people have their lives ruined by the more hardline drugs. It is an utter waste of life, bad for their families, and one less worker to build socialism. If these people use all their wages for drugs, then who will support them? I don&#39;t think the state should support an able person who uses their money on drugs, the state should rehabilitate them yes, but not tolerate their druguse.

All drug dealers (dealing drugs illegally is a form of capitalism by the way) should be given heavy prison terms and if the drug dealing gets out of hand examples should be made.


The complete victory of secular Mormonism...called, by virtue of a terminological error, "socialism".

Oh please.


And, as a consequence of this neo-puritanical nightmare, people everywhere will look back on capitalism as "a golden age"...and do their best to bring it back as quickly as they can.

What idiocy. If the people are that dependent on drugs, then they are far more reactionary in nature than I thought. I said, there will be massive propaganda campaigns, rehabilitation programs, and other things available for the people. I agree that punishment does not help them.

In a world full of capitalist embargoes, we must concentrate on providing necessities for our people before these unnecessary things, which just get in the way of their production. I agree the people in general definetly need leisure and entertainment, but does this entertainment mean making them fiends and lemmings? We must crush these reactionary ideas that society considers fun and replace these ideas with proletarian ideas of fun. Western ideas of entertainment are decadent and bourgeois. What does the rest of the oppressed world consider fun? That is what we must ask ourselves.

I am not &#39;puritanical at all&#39;. I believe people can do what they want in the privacy of their own homes, however, recreational drugs will not be sold on my streets.



Or, in my opinion, what fucking idiocy&#33;

You are rather immature for your age.

[Pete]

and one less worker to build socialism

will not be sold on my streets.

Erm :blink: Your ideology is confused within itself. Some of your terminology is very anti-authoritarian, others is very totalitarian... I suggest you ask your self why that is?

-Pete

On the topic at hand, I agree with RS2000. Bolshevika your ironfist will alienate more workers then marijuana would. Most people I know use it for relaxation purposes, after a hard day of work. Others I know crack open a beer and talk about the world, their lives, and their work. Some *gasp* even consume some hallucingenics to get away, temporarily, from the hell that they live in... Oh my goodness&#33; How evil&#33;

[Bolshevika]

Erm Your ideology is confused within itself. Some of your terminology is very anti-authoritarian, others is very totalitarian... I suggest you ask your self why that is?

I am "authoritarian" to some extent, but I also believe democracy is extremely important, there should be a blend of it, similar to the Soviet and Communard model. We should learn from the experiences in the Paris Commune, Soviet revolution, Chinese revolution, Cuban revolution (to some degree) etc for guidance. I am certainly not confused, I follow Marx.

In other words, democratic centralism is my ideal.


Most people I know use it for relaxation purposes, after a hard day of work. Others I know crack open a beer and talk about the world, their lives, and their work. Some *gasp* even consume some hallucingenics to get away, temporarily, from the hell that they live in...

You see, this is what we communists are trying to abolish. Why is work so hard, so dreadful, so depressing for the masses and why do they need to resort to foreign substances to get away from this pain? Because they are wage slaves, that is why capitalist nations have the highest suicide rates, high overdose rates, etc, because people feel their life is being wasted.

In a Socialist society a worker will not have to use forgein substances to ease their pain, the point of socialism is to abolish their pain, remember? Making drugs illegal only benefits the proletariat and keeps them away from something they do not need, I see nothing "authoritarian", "puritanical" or "totalitarian" in this, unless being a Marxist is "puritanical".

[canikickit]

What about the dirty perv who hangs around primary schools playgrounds? Who thinks looking at young children and thinking dark thoughts is fun? Or worse, acts on his satanic fantasies? This (for him) is fun...

Therefore is a benefit to society?

I never said anything fun should be legal.
I demonstrated one of the benifits of cannabis consumption.

You&#39;re off the pace.

[BuyOurEverything]

Goodness me, you&#39;re not serious? Looney&#33; I have no problem whatsoever in declaring my position: Pervs are BAD&#33; Intolerably so. They should be imprisoned and forced to watch endless repeats of "Jerry Springer" or "Catchphrase" or other similar trash. They ARE satanic practices and should be treated as such.


And how would you define a pervert? Someone who enjoys sexual practices that you do not? Homosexuals? Yes let&#39;s lock all the sinners up.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Bolshevika, i agree with your view point on the differences between medicinal or non-intoxicating drugs and illicit ones, as you can see from the past 19 pages of this topic (more in the first 10 pages or so, after that i tryed to kill it off).

[redstar2000]

I am certainly not confused, I follow Marx.

In other words, democratic centralism is my ideal.

Neat trick. As far as I know, the phrase "democratic centralism" never appears in any of the writings of Marx and Engels.


In a Socialist society a worker will not have to use foreign substances to ease their pain, the point of socialism is to abolish their pain, remember?

Interesting that people in the USSR had the heaviest alcohol consumption rate in the world, isn&#39;t it?

Meanwhile, let&#39;s suppose you&#39;re right; you "abolish" the pain of work.

In that case, no one would want those "foreign substances" and they would rot on the shelves of the "people&#39;s drug emporium".

After a while, you could quietly stop producing them and no one would care.

Somehow, I have the feeling that that&#39;s a chance you don&#39;t want to take.


Making drugs illegal only benefits the proletariat and keeps them away from something they do not need; I see nothing "authoritarian", "puritanical" or "totalitarian" in this, unless being a Marxist is "puritanical".

Gosh, "Dad", it&#39;s really comforting to have someone like you looking after my welfare, keeping me away from "temptation". It shows me that you really "care".

And we all "know" that point "11" was dropped from The Communist Manifesto through a "printer&#39;s error"; you know, where Marx and Engels said "No more opium & no more gin--will make the workers sure to win".


However, drugs like alcohol, marijuana, opium, cocaine, etc debilitate you mentally and stop you from completing your revolutionary tasks.

I suppose when used heavily, such an outcome is highly probable.

But the founder of the John Hopkins Medical Institute (the first scientific medical school in the U.S.) used morphine (an opiate) on a daily basis throughout his long and distinguished career.

Moderate drinking has been shown to be helpful in reducing stress and in maintaining a healthy cardio-vascular system. I suspect that moderate use of marijuana confers similar benefits.

As to cocaine and the opiates, we really don&#39;t know; scientific study of the possible benefits of those drugs is presently impossible, due to the anti-drug hysteria.


There is a difference between recreational drugs people do for no reason and drugs people use to live a normal life.

Recreation is "normal"...it doesn&#39;t need a "reason".


It is different when a bunch of teenagers decide to "get stoned" before their classes and a person in pain who needs this drug.

Pretty much any drug stronger than aspirin that can be used to relieve pain can also be used to get "high". There&#39;s a booming industry on the internet right now...selling large quantities of prescription pain-killers at reduced prices.

Look at that fat junkie Rush Limbaugh...always advocating prison for drug users. No street-corner purchases for him; he paid by credit card on the internet.


Another thing, I hate it completely when people have their lives ruined by the more hardline drugs. It is an utter waste of life, bad for their families, and one less worker to build socialism.

If all drugs were legal and inexpensive, most drug users would not "ruin their lives". It is the fact that drugs are illegal, very expensive, and completely unregulated with regard to quality that dramatically increases the probability of "ruin".


If these people use all their wages for drugs, then who will support them?

That won&#39;t happen...or, at least, it&#39;s a very low-probability event. Even hard-core alcoholics rarely drink up all their wages now.


All drug dealers (dealing drugs illegally is a form of capitalism by the way) should be given heavy prison terms and if the drug dealing gets out of hand examples should be made.

Yes, Leninists love prisons.

I already knew that.


If the people are that dependent on drugs, then they are far more reactionary in nature than I thought.

Why is it "reactionary in nature" to desire pleasure? Even if it is chemical?

Your "socialism" sounds like it will be about as much "fun" as a summer camp run by Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.


I agree the people in general definitely need leisure and entertainment, but does this entertainment mean making them fiends and lemmings?

"Fiends and lemmings"? If that&#39;s a theological reference, perhaps your expertise is greater than mine. Lemmings, however, have received a bum rap--the reason they "march into the sea" is that they are very near-sighted mammals and think they are just crossing another stream in the course of their migration.


We must crush these reactionary ideas that society considers fun and replace these ideas with proletarian ideas of fun.

The first "joint" I ever smoked (and one of the few) was given to me by a postal worker...marijuana has become a "proletarian idea of fun".


Western ideas of entertainment are decadent and bourgeois. What does the rest of the oppressed world consider fun? That is what we must ask ourselves.

Well, slaughtering the heathens in the next village comes to mind. Ethnic violence is likewise a big "hit". Rape is also very popular.

What, did you think they all sat around the fire and sang folk songs?


You are rather immature for your age.

So I have been told...all too often. I blame Che-Lives; it keeps me "young at heart". :D

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[truthaddict11]

I find is amazing that people who call themselves communists and socialists are hell bent on banning drugs. seems like they belong more in a William Bennet fan club then on che-lives.

[Soviet power supreme]

No wonder that revolutions don&#39;t happen in western countries since all "communists" are so drug addict hippies.

[Pete]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 30 2003, 03:01 PM
No wonder that revolutions don&#39;t happen in western countries since all "communists" are so drug addict hippies.
Thank&#39;s for the constructive post.

"drug addict hippies" you sound like some conservative in parliment arguing against the legalization of marijuana. Many of the real &#39;hippies&#39; I know are closer to living in an ideal society than probaly anyone here.

[Soviet power supreme]

I find is amazing that people who call themselves communists and socialists are hell bent on banning drugs. seems like they belong more in a William Bennet fan club then on che-lives.


"drug addict hippies" you sound like some conservative in parliment arguing against the legalization of marijuana.

Now who has said that communist can&#39;t be a conservative?


Many of the real &#39;hippies&#39; I know are closer to living in an ideal society than probaly anyone here.

I doubt.

[Pete]

Now who has said that communist can&#39;t be a conservative?

:lol: Come on now. Conservatism is the antithesis.


I doubt.

You may very well do that, but when it comes down to it who is right? The authoritarian who thinks by banning something that it will go away, or the anarchist who accepts it and sees that to make the need no more one must work toward a better society, and then, like the state, the use of drugs will wither away.

[Soviet power supreme]

Come on now. Conservatism is the antithesis.

I didn&#39;t mean that I&#39;m a 100% conservatist.I meant to say that Why some ideas from conservatism couldn&#39;t be in a communist society?

[Pete]

I didn&#39;t mean that I&#39;m a 100% conservatist.I meant to say that Why some ideas from conservatism couldn&#39;t be in a communist society?

Okay then. We will have big business. All those protesting anarchist pukes will be arrested and beaten. No hospitals for the poor. Drugs will be illegal because we know that really stops them. Oh ya, women have no say in anything&#33; Yes here we go....

[Pete]

You forgot that these drunks emplyoee many polices because they are put to jail.The construction business goes well because prisons must expand and smoking rooms are built for smokers.Many psychiatrists are needed for drunks and their beaten families.Coffeen makers make money because drunk driving kills a lot of people per year.

That&#39;s disgusting.

[truthaddict11]

Soviet Power Supreme, you are aware of what happens during prohibition right? I suggest you read into it. You&#39;ll find out banning drugs actually leads to more crime, murder, deaths from overdoses ect.

[Pete]

YOu may have not started the question, but you seem to be saying that alcohol is good because of those reasons, supporting its misuse.

[Rastafari]

oh shit. I fucked up.

[Pete]

As I said before banning drugs does nothing. They still exist. They are still used. People still need an escape, a way to get to bed at night, a way to kill stress, something to do when capitalism has them in a depression. Marijuana is illegal in Canada, in British Colombia the biggest cash crop is what? Canola? No, marijuana.

Good thing its illegal eh?

To give the people freedom you authoritarians plan to take it away, yet it seems in your posts that you plan to do nothing to stop the need, just the legitimate supply (which does not exist at the moment in most Western nations). This creates more problems. Think 1920&#39;s mobsters. What did they specialize on? Oh ya, illegal alcohol.

[Soviet power supreme]

YOu may have not started the question, but you seem to be saying that alcohol is good because of those reasons, supporting its misuse.

Workers in tobacco and aclcohol and other cash crops industries can be guided to others jobs.

What I listed are much worse than firing those workers.


It shouldn&#39;t mean anything&#33;&#33;&#33; It means too much as it is. The only way it should matter for shit is if the two are married. Then, barely.


Why then men are forced to rise the children?They mean nothing to them.

[Soviet power supreme]

As I said before banning drugs does nothing.

Well you are right.

I was thinking that we should destroy them all.

Every single crop.Leave no drugs on the earth.
Vanish drugs from history books.Rehabilate all current users.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 30 2003, 06:06 PM

As I said before banning drugs does nothing.

Well you are right.

I was thinking that we should destroy them all.

Every single crop.Leave no drugs on the earth.
Vanish drugs from history books.Rehabilate all current users.
hahahahahahahaha lets see how long you stay alive when you start doing that.

once again the puritan shows his ignorance

[Pete]

Every single crop.Leave no drugs on the earth.
Vanish drugs from history books.Rehabilate all current users

Well capt&#39;n I wish you luck with that. If only dreams where real eh?

Your proposal is completely unpratical. Look to Afganistan, opium poppies are back on the rise because if you just destroy all the drugs, every single crop, but give nothing in exchange for them to grow you end up in the same spot.

And you want to change history. Well, that&#39;s your choice. I certaintly would never believe such a blatant lie. "The British never fought a war to legalize the drug trade." "Oliver North funded the contras by selling lollipops to kids on the street."

-Pete

[Rastafari]

QUOTE
It shouldn&#39;t mean anything&#33;&#33;&#33; It means too much as it is. The only way it should matter for shit is if the two are married. Then, barely.



Why then men are forced to rise the children?They mean nothing to them.

We have a new discussion of this now


As for wiping the drugs clean off the Earth, the religious and authoritarian overtones are frightening

[Soviet power supreme]

Well yes maybe the history thing was too much but what does it matter if there would not be drugs anymore.

Why the rest cannot be aplied?


Your proposal is completely unpratical. Look to Afganistan, opium poppies are back on the rise because if you just destroy all the drugs, every single crop, but give nothing in exchange for them to grow you end up in the same spot.


Now why those can&#39;t be replaced?

It is practical and possible but it need every states fully support.


We have a new discussion of this now

Nope.Fetus is child.Child is fetus but only an intelligent one.
But child is not part of woman and fetus is?says Rastafari
They both are part of a woman.
the difference is that child isn&#39;t inside the woman&#39;s body.

[truthaddict11]

maybe its all a "little" to much Soviet Supreme should be George Bush&#39;s drug czar he would fit in nice there. You are William Bennet&#39;s wet dream.

[Pete]

Why the rest cannot be aplied?

Well perhaps you should explain the logistics of this to us. How would you go about destroying every marijuna plant in the world? Every poppy? Every cocaine plant? Every mushroom? Every grape? Every apple? Every stand of barley? ect.

You cannot. It is an immature and unthoughtout proposal that is not pratical. It is pure rhetoric and has no support except by the dreams of authoritarians who wish they could rule the world and model it to their whims.


Now why those can&#39;t be replaced?

The point is they haven&#39;t. Most people who only care about destroying these leave it at that, which is why there has been an insurrgence of poppy&#39;s in Afganistan. Those who prohibbitted it had a one minded destruction approach, and did not see that to eat these people had to make a plant that would actually grow in their soil and that could be sold or traded for what they need to live.


It is practical and possible but it need every states fully support.

The state is not a seperate entity. It is made up with by people. If you are truly a leftist, then wouldn&#39;t all the governments be made up of the lower class? I doubt they would see the logic in destroying one means of relaxation. You&#39;d probaly have to force them to do it, which is counterproductive in the long run.

[Soviet power supreme]

Species extinct everyday.Why wouldn&#39;t drug plants?
And it would be good that people do that in purpose.
And what is better destroyer that human.

[Pete]

:lol:

Do you know why these species go exinct? Becuase of human destruction of rainforest. It is more a guess that we didn&#39;t know they existed and only existed in that one location, but there is high probalitility that they are now all gone.

I think you should back out with the later intergrety you have left. You are pulling at straws. Marjiuna, in itself, is far to widespread to be wiped out. Also, where do you think hemp comes from? Many plants that can be used as drugs have other purposes. You cannot destroy them. Thats idiocy.

-Pete

[Rasta Sapian]

I am a bush doctor, smoke erb everyday&#33; its ja life for me :)
I grow it, trim it, dry it, cut it , spin it , and smoke it&#33;

legalize mariguana, ooh ooh ooh, right here in the america&#39;s ooh, ooh, ooh
they say it cures glucoma, and asthma ya

no more smoking, and feeling tense, when i see them come, don&#39;t have to jump no fence, ooh ooh ooh
no more police brutality
no more disrespect for humanity

legalize mariguana

[BuyOurEverything]

I am a bush doctor, smoke erb everyday&#33; its ja life for me
I grow it, trim it, dry it, cut it , spin it , and smoke it&#33;

legalize mariguana, ooh ooh ooh, right here in the america&#39;s ooh, ooh, ooh
they say it cures glucoma, and asthma ya

no more smoking, and feeling tense, when i see them come, don&#39;t have to jump no fence, ooh ooh ooh
no more police brutality
no more disrespect for humanity

legalize mariguana

Haha, I&#39;m actually listening to that song right now.


Species extinct everyday.Why wouldn&#39;t drug plants?
And it would be good that people do that in purpose.
And what is better destroyer that human.

That&#39;s ridiculous. There are way too many minor grow ops just in Vancouver alone, let alone the world, to find and destroy without doing door to door searches of every single house in the world. And even if you did that, what&#39;s to keep people from keeping the seeds and planting them again when the search is over? And even if you did get rid of all "drug plants," there&#39;s still the thousands of chemical drugs that people create in labs.

[Guest1]

did you consider why it&#39;s called "weed"?

why don&#39;t you try eliminating all the normal weeds on all the lawns on your block first, then you&#39;ll get an idea of how hard it&#39;ll be to eliminate one of earth&#39;s hardiest weeds from an area that we can safely call, much larger. I doubt your neighbours will be happy about it, either.

and yeah, the only reasons you hate drugs so much, whether you admit it to yourself or not, are based on religious influence. think about it.

[Rastafari]

how do you feel about hemp?

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Cant we just accept that some of us are more liberal on this isue than others, I have debated on this for what seems forever, and its pretty obvious that everyone has a strong opinion on this matter, but as we dont have any say or input on what happens, why are we arguing over it?
Arent we better to put aside this difference and concentrate on the things we do have power over? I think every point, good and bad, both pro and against has been raised. If you have a point to make read back over the last NINETEEN pages, undoubtably its been made over n over again. I think this thread should recieve the sticky treatement, so no-one ever has the misfortune to bring it up again&#33;

Edit : make that 21 pages

[crazy comie]

i agree

[Pete]

Well the points that have made over the past weekend more or less put criminalization of these substances into perspective as what it truly is: oppression and pointless.

Wow this post seems so much shorter then my last one in the &#39;laissez faire&#39; thread in OI.


:)

-Pete

[Soviet power supreme]

and yeah, the only reasons you hate drugs so much, whether you admit it to yourself or not, are based on religious influence. think about it.

I thought about and nope.Just economical.

Where did you get that idea?Bible?Has Jesus said not to smoke weed?

[Pete]

Right wing movements, such as the temperance league, in the 1920&#39;s (and earlier) lobbyed for substances like alcohol and marijuana to be illegal on the same platform that you do. If such a group existed today it would be called fundamentalist.

[Bolshevika]

Neat trick. As far as I know, the phrase "democratic centralism" never appears in any of the writings of Marx and Engels.

You are right. Democratic centralism is a term for Dictatorship of the proletariat. Let&#39;s keep this in the theory board.


nteresting that people in the USSR had the heaviest alcohol consumption rate in the world, isn&#39;t it?

I don&#39;t think that is necessarily true that they had the heaviest alcohol consumption rate in the world. Even if they did, it is more of a cultural issue rather than a political one. The Soviet government made a lot of money exporting its alcoholic beverages because they are famous for them. I guess the Soviet government turned the other cheek, this was wrong.


After a while, you could quietly stop producing them and no one would care.

Somehow, I have the feeling that that&#39;s a chance you don&#39;t want to take.

All drugs should be recalled from shelves and destroyed. If the people never have access to these drugs, they will not notice it is gone. It&#39;s common sense.



And we all "know" that point "11" was dropped from The Communist Manifesto through a "printer&#39;s error"; you know, where Marx and Engels said "No more opium & no more gin--will make the workers sure to win".

Drugs issues weren&#39;t anything of importance, and they still aren&#39;t. It&#39;s something I will debate over, but I wouldn&#39;t go to serious lengths and make it an important issue. Control of druguse can be easily regulated by massive propaganda campagns and making examples of all black market dealers.


But the founder of the John Hopkins Medical Institute (the first scientific medical school in the U.S.) used morphine (an opiate) on a daily basis throughout his long and distinguished career.

That&#39;s great, now let&#39;s compare his sucessful life with everyone elses who has been addicted to morphine.


Moderate drinking has been shown to be helpful in reducing stress and in maintaining a healthy cardio-vascular system. I suspect that moderate use of marijuana confers similar benefits.

Yes, but how about that considerable amount who abuse these two substances?


As to cocaine and the opiates, we really don&#39;t know; scientific study of the possible benefits of those drugs is presently impossible, due to the anti-drug hysteria.

I think the risk of overdose is bad enough.


Pretty much any drug stronger than aspirin that can be used to relieve pain can also be used to get "high". There&#39;s a booming industry on the internet right now...selling large quantities of prescription pain-killers at reduced prices.

These items are medicine that require prescriptions for purchase. Those who sell RX drugs are just as bad those who sell heroine.


If all drugs were legal and inexpensive, most drug users would not "ruin their lives". It is the fact that drugs are illegal, very expensive, and completely unregulated with regard to quality that dramatically increases the probability of "ruin".

This is a good point, but still, even if these drugs were legal, is there any way to take out the damage to health and mind they do? I doubt it. All the worker&#39;s country asks from him is the most production he can muster, and if drugs get in the way of this, then he is not completing his industrial tasks.


Yes, Leninists love prisons.

I already knew that.

Yes, as does every civilized society . Prisons are necessary to keep the more violent criminals in.


Why is it "reactionary in nature" to desire pleasure? Even if it is chemical?

Your "socialism" sounds like it will be about as much "fun" as a summer camp run by Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.

Drug trade is something the bourgeoisie profits from (except for when revolutionary movements use it to generate revenue for political purposes). It is a form of capitalism.

Secondly, I don&#39;t understand how having old fashioned views on drugs is something "Pat Robertson" would do. Hell, the early Christians were even junkies.


The first "joint" I ever smoked (and one of the few) was given to me by a postal worker...marijuana has become a "proletarian idea of fun".

In mainstream decadent American culture maybe, but in the rest of the civilized world it is not. I&#39;ve had some fine experiences with the proletariat in third world nations, and rest assured, none of them involved "pot" or "heroine" (although ciggerrettes are quite popular).

And Soviet Surpreme Power

The drug addicted hippies are Anarchists. As are the stoner teenage punk rockers. Is this a trend amongst them?

[Pete]

You ignore my entire arguement.

Quit your immature generalizations, the ones in your last sentence especially.

[truthaddict11]

remove all drugs from shelves? lol your suggestion reeks of stupidity. i guess no one can ever drink tea, coffee, cola in your "brilliant" world. no antibiotics unless by perscription. no apsirin for headaches or backaches. lets see how many people you are on your side when they find out you are banning all drugs

[redstar2000]

All the worker&#39;s country asks from him is the most production he can muster, and if drugs get in the way of this, then he is not completing his industrial tasks.

That&#39;s all my old bosses "asked" of me under capitalism. I didn&#39;t give it to them. :lol:


I don&#39;t understand how having old fashioned views on drugs is something "Pat Robertson" would do.

Well, he&#39;s a famous reactionary asshole and you are...


In mainstream decadent American culture...

From this and other posts that you&#39;ve made, I gather that you are another "third world romantic"...one who believes that working people in the U.S. and other advanced capitalist countries are "mostly shit".

This is the Maoist thesis and quite attractive to some people who know very little of Marxism.

That means, of course, that unless you plan on being a "cheerleader", you will have to emigrate to a "third world" country in order to do any kind of useful political work. Perhaps you are prepared to do that.

But you must understand that those of us who do not share your romanticism are bound to regard your neo-puritanism as repugnant.

Modern workers are not attracted to a life of hardship and sacrifice...and if that is what one proposes to them in the "name" of "communism", such appeals will be almost universally rejected.

Call that "decadence" if you wish...no one is likely to agree with you except the followers of reactionaries like Pat Robertson.

That&#39;s just the way things are.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

:angry: Why wont this thread die? I think we have established that there are alot of misguided liberals who see socialism as a chance to sit around pumping themselves full of chemicals in a vain attempt to end their miserable existance.

[Soviet power supreme]

And Soviet Surpreme Power

The drug addicted hippies are Anarchists. As are the stoner teenage punk rockers. Is this a trend amongst them?


They both are lazy selfish bastards.


From this and other posts that you&#39;ve made, I gather that you are another "third world romantic"...one who believes that working people in the U.S. and other advanced capitalist countries are "mostly shit".

Just compare how communists are liked in western countries and in the third world countries.Look at the parliaments.Seen any communist majority there?

[Pete]

El Marko, Bolshevika, and SPS...

You guys are providing nothing but weak arguements that are easily broken, empty propaganda, lies, and discrimination. What this debate has proven is that those who want to make drugs illegal are authoritarian, powerhungry, and idealists who have no chance of gripping the reality of the situation.


I think we have established that there are alot of misguided liberals who see socialism as a chance to sit around pumping themselves full of chemicals in a vain attempt to end their miserable existance.

Well, you have established that you have an arguement, yet no proof for it. You do not care why people use them, just that tehy do use them. Even the quote above is lacking substance. The picture, even worse. Grow up, open your mind, see reality.


They both are lazy selfish bastards.

Lazy and selfish you may label us, but that means nothinga s it is just a label. There is no support in it. Who are the majority of protesters against capitalist powers? Who are actually making themselves known on a large scale? Who are able to work with other groups and do not constantly support reactionary policies that limit personal freedom and only hinder whatever legitimate arguements they have?

The "lazy selfish bastards" thats who&#33;


Just compare how communists are liked in western countries and in the third world countries.Look at the parliaments.Seen any communist majority there?

You but prove him right.....


-Pete

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

El Marko, Bolshevika, and SPS...

You guys are providing nothing but weak arguements that are easily broken, empty propaganda, lies, and discrimination. What this debate has proven is that those who want to make drugs illegal are authoritarian, powerhungry, and idealists who have no chance of gripping the reality of the situation.

FOR FUCKS SAKE&#33; Read the first 15 pages, There you will find i have provided many facts, often left unanswered, along with the sources they came from, all presented very factually. In return all i recieved was &#39;fuck u, u stalinist scum&#39; or words to that effect. Why should I (or we) bother providing a factual argument when you dont? I feel its more your responsibility to say WHY they SHOULD be leagalised and this huge change should come around, than us saying why we think that the current laws on drugs are correct (or at least belive them to be more correct than yourselves). Perhaps instead of posting blind responses you should spend half a day reading this thread.
Oh yeah and pete, all this thread proves is that people disagree ;) .

p.s. Any mods fancy making this a sticky or locking it anytime soon?

[Pete]

We did, look at the last few pages.

It does prove we disagree yes :)

I am not aobut to sticky or close this debate, it will die on its on.

-Pete

[Rastafari]

or when those who realize they are wrong realize it.


so, it will never die.

How about we close it January 1st? A deadline, if you will.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Better still stop posting in it now.

[Rastafari]

if we are in such odds over this, what&#39;ll happen when the revolution comes?

[crazy comie]

It will probbably still be an unsolved issue

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

If thats all we have to worry about, were onto a winner comrade&#33; :P

[canikickit]

There won&#39;t be a revolution if people retain their reactionary attitudes.
Trying to control people is counterrevolutionary.

[Soviet power supreme]

You but prove him right.....

I meant to include also anarchists in that word communists.


Who are the majority of protesters against capitalist powers?

Not anarchists thats for sure.


It does prove we disagree yes

It sure does.

[@[email protected]@]

I should not involve such topic. I thought the approval and the opposition all as if has the full reason. I want to speak an experience. Pulls out the cigarette about me the history. Is young in me, is lower than 18 years old. ÄêÇàÈË smokes the behavior is not by the social custom approval, but, certainly does not have the law prohibition. Just like you knew that, says to young me, smokes is one kind forgives two kind of meanings the symbols: Rebels against with is grown-up. In the recent 20 years passed by. The social custom already approved I should not involve such topic. I thought the approval and the opposition all as if has the full reason. I want to speak an experience. Pulls out the cigarette about me the history. Is young in me, is lower than 18 years old. ÄêÇàÈË smokes the behavior is not by the social custom approval, but, certainly does not have the law prohibition. Just like you knew that, says to young me, smokes is one kind forgives two kind of meanings the symbols: Rebels against with is grown-up. In the recent 20 years passed by. The social custom already approved ÄêÇàÈË to smoke. But, has the legal prohibition to be lower than 18 year old of purchase cigarette. More interesting is, now majority ÄêÇàÈË does not smoke. Because they thought this is not the healthy behavior, moreover is not fashionable. But I must consume several cigarettes nearly every day. For 20 years are the very great disbursements. I thought I abstained at least 100. In US or other country, I thought the validity and the non- crime is feasible. I in People&#39;s Republic of China life. Is absolutely forbidden in here DRUG&#33; From the history, we hate any narcotics&#33; They are disadvantageous to any good life. to smoke. But, has the legal prohibition to be lower than 18 year old of purchase cigarette. More interesting is, now majority ÄêÇàÈË does not smoke. Because they thought this is not the healthy behavior, moreover is not fashionable. But I must consume several cigarettes nearly every day. For 20 years are the very great disbursements. I thought I abstained at least 100. In US or other country, I thought the validity and the non- crime is feasible. I in People&#39;s Republic of China life. Is absolutely forbidden in here DRUG&#33; From the history, we hate any narcotics&#33; They are disadvantageous to any good life.

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

i c :huh:

[Pete]

Not anarchists thats for sure.

Tis what you say. But go on, believe it. I&#39;d like to say, though, that people of anti-authoritarian basis are those protesting the most.

-Pete

[crazy comie]

I think i agree with cannkit on this one.

[redstar2000]

More "true life adventures" of the war on drugs...

Board upholds expulsion of student caught with over-the-counter pills

BOSSIER CITY, La. (AP) - The Bossier Parish School Board voted unanimously Thursday night to uphold the expulsion of a high school student who brought an over-the-counter pain reliever to school.

Superintendent Ken Kruithof said after the board meeting that the school system is following a state law that requires a one-year expulsion and is being consistent with the system&#39;s "zero-tolerance" policy.

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/in...08441172102.xml (http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1070608441172102.xml)

.................................................

Even short term use of cannabis can damage the lungs of young people, say researchers.

Non-smokers had the healthiest lungs. But cannabis users showed more signs of damage than those who stuck to cigarettes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/3293459.stm

Are you scared yet???

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[crazy comie]

That school was compleatly unfair how is having a pain killer in school so bad.
It isn&#39;t a matter of how dangerous the drug is but how much of an infringment of freedom it is.

[Guest1]

I feel its more your responsibility to say WHY they SHOULD be leagalised and this huge change should come around, than us saying why we think that the current laws on drugs are correct (or at least belive them to be more correct than yourselves).

see that&#39;s the problem here. you don&#39;t seem to realize that it is not on us that the burden lies. if you place the burden of proof on the people to prove they need a liberty, the government can get away with alot of rediculous shit.

let&#39;s say the government bans pop music. now I hate pop music, but I don&#39;t believe it should banned. For someone to fight that law, if they had to prove why they should legalize pop music, they would fail. Because pop music is shit and there&#39;s no reason why it should exist.

But it shouldn&#39;t be the government&#39;s place to judge that.

If the government had to prove a reason why it should ban it, it would fail too.

So, the default in law, should always be, no restriction.


Why wont this thread die? I think we have established that there are alot of misguided liberals who see socialism as a chance to sit around pumping themselves full of chemicals in a vain attempt to end their miserable existance.

I think it&#39;s quite telling that you wanna kill the debate. It&#39;s reflective of what kind of a society you look towards. Just as how you think the government should not have to prove the necessity for its oppression, so toodo you think that debates authority loses should be silenced quickly.

[crazy comie]

I think i agree with that post.

[Guest1]

thanks, but I think they&#39;ve gone and killed the topic anyway :)

[Eastside Revolt]

Not yet, however I WILL now kill this topic.....

"One Love, One Heart
Let&#39;s get together and feel all right"

[tigermb]

Damn, if it comes to ganja, everybody gets active&#33; 22 pages&#33;

There are already 22, but had to post my comment, since i&#39;m from holland, the only country will real legal herb.
You can better smoke ganja than get drunk or smoke cigarettes. Herb ainto gonne make you agressive or addicted, it&#39;ll only make you peaceful and friendly.
Apart from that it could also be used a medicine. It might be better than chemical stuff you buy at the drug store.


--
"We don&#39;t let our enemies have guns, so why would we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin (It also fits nicely on Bush/Reagan and the other nobodies)

[crazy comie]

long live ganja

[Pepo]

As far as I&#39;m concerned I really don&#39;t mind marijuana to be ilegal.
There might be better control over quality and so on, if it will be leagalise, but on the other side I think,...
I don&#39;t see any problem to find it in Portugal, Germany, England or even Poland. Ofcoarse in Portugal and Spain we are very well served by Mother Nature, apart from being the Entrance in Europa of marijuana, also everyone that likes to have a good smoke knows how to recognise what is good or not, I really don&#39;t need someone pointing the best product, but even what would piss me off, it would be the idea to pay more governmental taxes.

After all in Holand they made a simple choice. They allow everyone to have untill 3 plants at home, or x grams in the pocket, etc... but the government can control all the sistem and at the end gets millions in Taxes - I mean, is not a stupid idea.

[crazy comie]

The taxes are ussfull for yuo pay for health costswich result from ganja.