Cannabis (almost) decriminalised!

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
About bloody time too.



Oh, that's the UK btw, where weeed is no longer a class "B" automatic-trip-to-the-station type of dealie but an "I'll have that sonny, tut tut tut" affair.



Meaning: I can smoke spliffs on the streets of London town and The Man isn't going to do diddly.



Truly a great day.



Next maybe heroin can be easily available to registered junkies from doctors on prescription and they'll stop mugging and breaking in to pay for their habit. I live in hope.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 47
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Id like to take all you junkie P's OF S and drop you into an Afghan cave, 10 seconds before we annihilate it. **** You.



    PC tolerance. **** that too.
  • Reply 2 of 47
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Next maybe heroin can be easily available to registered junkies from doctors on prescription and they'll stop mugging and breaking in to pay for their habit. I live in hope.





    And who's going to pay for that? You will either way. Either the government will pay for it (that's your tax money), or the junkie will pay for it (by mugging you). Yeah, that's the ticket!
  • Reply 3 of 47
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    i guess i'm moving to london. actually, according to the laws of ny/nyc (th' greatest place on earf), holding less than 25g of mari j (~31g are in an oz) is only a `violation` (akin to a parking ticket) and (at most) a $100 fine (first offence, $250 thereafter). They aren't supposed to bring you in on that. They tend to b overzealous since Rudy's reefer maddness tho, and put you up for the night. damn fascists.
  • Reply 4 of 47
    [quote]Originally posted by Outsider:

    <strong>Next maybe heroin can be easily available to registered junkies from doctors on prescription and they'll stop mugging and breaking in to pay for their habit. I live in hope.





    And who's going to pay for that? You will either way. Either the government will pay for it (that's your tax money), or the junkie will pay for it (by mugging you). Yeah, that's the ticket!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well hey, if I'm going to pay for it anyway I'd infinitely prefer to pay for it generously through my (dread word) TAXES without the threat of random violence or theft in a sort of public-spirited, let's-all-pull-together-like-civilised-human-beings fashion.
  • Reply 5 of 47
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by Hassan i-Sabbah:

    <strong>



    Well hey, if I'm going to pay for it anyway I'd infinitely prefer to pay for it generously through my (dread word) TAXES without the threat of random violence or theft in a sort of public-spirited, let's-all-pull-together-like-civilised-human-beings fashion.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Amen.
  • Reply 6 of 47
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    And I'm sure other tax payers feel the same way (not). I mean you guys do have a democracy there, right, so you would have to vote on it. I'd rather have MY taxes go towards treatment to get OFF heroin that to subsidize their addiction.
  • Reply 7 of 47
    [quote]Originally posted by Harald:

    <strong>About bloody time too.



    Oh, that's the UK btw, where weeed is no longer a class "B" automatic-trip-to-the-station type of dealie but an "I'll have that sonny, tut tut tut" affair.



    Meaning: I can smoke spliffs on the streets of London town and The Man isn't going to do diddly.



    Truly a great day.



    Next maybe heroin can be easily available to registered junkies from doctors on prescription and they'll stop mugging and breaking in to pay for their habit. I live in hope.</strong><hr></blockquote>







    Very cool about the cannibus. But heroin is a whole other story. Rehabilitation and education should be the priorty, not hand-outs to support their habit. Heroin is a ****in' deadly drug. I've seen it destroy lives. It would be like handing out alcohol to drunks...only makes the situation worse.



    Have a spliff on me... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
  • Reply 8 of 47
    [quote]Originally posted by MarcUK:

    <strong>Id like to take all you junkie P's OF S and drop you into an Afghan cave, 10 seconds before we annihilate it. **** You.



    PC tolerance. **** that too.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I seriously recommend you sit down somewhere quiet with a large spliff, Marc from Wiltshire, and chill.
  • Reply 9 of 47
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    [quote]Originally posted by Outsider:

    <strong>I'd rather have MY taxes go towards treatment to get OFF heroin that to subsidize their addiction.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    obviously you do not like heroin (or have never tried it). But, if its possible for a person to use it and like it, without hurting another person, then that should be possible. I think that the heroin addicts should be allowed to do their drug(s), but without hurting others. If all drugs are legalized, then corporate competition will eventually make them really cheap to buy, and that will end street-deals. Heroin addicts wouldn't need 10s of 1000s of dollars (USD) to get their fix. People could do drugs without mugging and looting. and without the criminal aspect.



    plus, my hydroponic would be cheaper, and i could freely smoke on the street.
  • Reply 10 of 47
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:

    <strong>



    obviously you do not like heroin (or have never tried it). But, if its possible for a person to use it and like it, without hurting another person, then that should be possible. I think that the heroin addicts should be allowed to do their drug(s), but without hurting others. If all drugs are legalized, then corporate competition will eventually make them really cheap to buy, and that will end street-deals. Heroin addicts wouldn't need 10s of 1000s of dollars (USD) to get their fix. People could do drugs without mugging and looting. and without the criminal aspect.



    plus, my hydroponic would be cheaper, and i could freely smoke on the street.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    People often forget that most drug-related crime relates to the dealers. Legalize the drugs. Get rid of the dealers. Not to mention it would free more than half of the prisoners in the US. We are just a bunch of freaking puritans. Argh.
  • Reply 11 of 47
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:

    <strong>







    Very cool about the cannibus. But heroin is a whole other story. Rehabilitation and education should be the priorty, not hand-outs to support their habit. Heroin is a ****in' deadly drug. I've seen it destroy lives. It would be like handing out alcohol to drunks...only makes the situation worse.



    Have a spliff on me... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    If someone wants to kill themself, why shouldn't they? Hell, I think the government should help in any way possible. If cheeseburger is the weapon of choice--so be it. If alcohol or heroin are the weapons of choice--again, so be it. I want to see suicide booths at every corner.



    JOIN THE FIGHT! YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE (AND TO END IT WHEN YOU PLEASE)! JOIN THE PRO-DEATH MOVEMENT!
  • Reply 12 of 47
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    I'll join the pro-death movement! I plan on dying in 60 years or so, but I'll play it by ear when I get there.
  • Reply 13 of 47
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by Outsider:

    <strong>I'll join the pro-death movement! I plan on dying in 60 years or so, but I'll play it by ear when I get there.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You don't have to want to die to be pro-death. You just have to believe that everyone has the right to die when they want to.
  • Reply 14 of 47
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    OK, look, it's really very simple.



    Say I'm a smack head.



    1) I'm ill because I get crap drugs, cut with rubbish. I spend all my money on junk so I sleep in a shit pit and don't eat.



    2) To satisfy my addiction, I break into people's houses and steal things. I mug people on the street.



    3) The money I spend is making bad people very rich. Maybe al Qaeda, maybe some fckuwit in Colombia, maybe the people who run my neighbourhood. They'll do everything they can to make sure I stay addicted.



    4) MILLIONS is spent on trying to bust me, putting in me in clink (where I become even more hardened) as well as chasing the bad guys.



    Now, Outsider, I'm sure you won't disagree with any of these, pretty factual wouldn't you say? If you disagree, please list the number and explain why.



    Now let's say I get smack on prescription (as part of a PROGRAMME TO GET ME OFF JUNK).



    1) I'm more healthy. My drugs are good. I'm not spending money on it so I'm not on the street. I can hold down a house. My chances of getting a job are higher. I've got a better chance of making a positive effect on the economy.



    2) Well, I'm not going to commit any more crime, because I don't have to. Sleep better everyone! Feel safer walking down the streets. In addition, I'm part of a programme to get me off the crap.



    3) What happens to the money that was going to the bad guys? I'll tell you. It doesn't go to the bad guys. Fewer big criminals, fewer terrorists, safer countries, the end of international drug trafficing.



    4) The police don't have to spend that money busting me or smaller drug dealers. More resources to go after other criminals, less criminals.



    The public purse will be *better off* ... what's more expensive to the state, greenhouse-grown drugs or the multi millions (billions) that go into busting millions of addicts, chasing the bad guys over and over again, when you bust one up comes another. Newsflash: the war on drugs is lost. Beat those scum another way.



    OK Outie, where do you disagree with this logic?



    Oh, and MarkUK, if you're intending on having a pint tonight you're a fücking jester, you "junkie P' of S." I'm no more addicted to weed then you are to pints.



    [ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 47
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by Harald:

    <strong>OK, look, it's really very simple.



    Say I'm a smack head.



    1) I'm ill because I get crap drugs, cut with rubbish. I spend all my money on junk so I sleep in a shit pit and don't eat.



    2) To satisfy my addiction, I break into people's houses and steal things. I mug people on the street.



    3) The money I spend is making bad people very rich. Maybe al Qaeda, maybe some fckuwit in Colombia, maybe the people who run my neighbourhood. They'll do everything they can to make sure I stay addicted.



    4) MILLIONS is spent on trying to bust me, putting in me in clink (where I become even more hardened) as well as chasing the bad guys.



    Now, Outsider, I'm sure you won't disagree with any of these, pretty factual wouldn't you say? If you disagree, please list the number and explain why.



    Now let's say I get smack on prescription (as part of a PROGRAMME TO GET ME OFF JUNK).



    1) I'm more healthy. My drugs are good. I'm not spending money on it so I'm not on the street. I can hold down a house. My chances of getting a job are higher. I've got a better chance of making a positive effect on the economy.



    2) Well, I'm not going to commit any more crime, because I don't have to. Sleep better everyone! Feel safer walking down the streets. In addition, I'm part of a programme to get me off the crap.



    3) What happens to the money that was going to the bad guys? I'll tell you. It doesn't go to the bad guys. Fewer big criminals, fewer terrorists, safer countries, the end of international drug trafficing.



    4) The police don't have to spend that money busting me or smaller drug dealers. More resources to go after other criminals, less criminals.



    The public purse will be *better off* ... what's more expensive to the state, greenhouse-grown drugs or the multi millions (billions) that go into busting millions of addicts, chasing the bad guys over and over again, when you bust one up comes another. Newsflash: the war on drugs is lost. Beat those scum another way.



    OK Outie, where do you disagree with this logic?



    Oh, and MarkUK, if you're intending on having a pint tonight you're a fücking jester, you "junkie P' of S." I'm no more addicted to weed then you are to pints.



    [ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Two Amens in one thread. That's gotta be some sort of record.
  • Reply 16 of 47
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    [quote]Originally posted by Harald:

    <strong>OK, look, it's really very simple.



    Say I'm a smack head.



    1) I'm ill because I get crap drugs, cut with rubbish. I spend all my money on junk so I sleep in a shit pit and don't eat.



    2) To satisfy my addiction, I break into people's houses and steal things. I mug people on the street.



    3) The money I spend is making bad people very rich. Maybe al Qaeda, maybe some fckuwit in Colombia, maybe the people who run my neighbourhood. They'll do everything they can to make sure I stay addicted.



    4) MILLIONS is spent on trying to bust me, putting in me in clink (where I become even more hardened) as well as chasing the bad guys.



    Now, Outsider, I'm sure you won't disagree with any of these, pretty factual wouldn't you say? If you disagree, please list the number and explain why.



    Now let's say I get smack on prescription (as part of a PROGRAMME TO GET ME OFF JUNK).



    1) I'm more healthy. My drugs are good. I'm not spending money on it so I'm not on the street. I can hold down a house. My chances of getting a job are higher. I've got a better chance of making a positive effect on the economy.



    2) Well, I'm not going to commit any more crime, because I don't have to. Sleep better everyone! Feel safer walking down the streets. In addition, I'm part of a programme to get me off the crap.



    3) What happens to the money that was going to the bad guys? I'll tell you. It doesn't go to the bad guys. Fewer big criminals, fewer terrorists, safer countries, the end of international drug trafficing.



    4) The police don't have to spend that money busting me or smaller drug dealers. More resources to go after other criminals, less criminals.



    The public purse will be *better off* ... what's more expensive to the state, greenhouse-grown drugs or the multi millions (billions) that go into busting millions of addicts, chasing the bad guys over and over again, when you bust one up comes another. Newsflash: the war on drugs is lost. Beat those scum another way.



    OK Outie, where do you disagree with this logic?



    Oh, and MarkUK, if you're intending on having a pint tonight you're a fücking jester, you "junkie P' of S." I'm no more addicted to weed then you are to pints.



    [ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    If i could feed all this info into a software program and it gives me a result as to how this will work 5, 10 and 20 years down the line, I would. But such a program does not exist. Listen, your plan may work but I think it's the wrong way to approach it. When someone tries this plan out then we can see some results. Only until then will we see if it makes the problem better or worse.



    But you're not honestly telling me that heroin is not so bad a drug if it was cut and made cleanly? This is not pot, a relatively harmless drug that is not very addictive, this is heroin, highly addictive and dangerous. How do you know that if you give someone a cleaner and purer heroin that it won't make them MORE addictive and therefore they'll NEVER get off it no matter what treatments they receive? maybe the dirty impure heroin is the only thing making junkies resistant to total dependence on it.
  • Reply 17 of 47
    i say legalize it all. you can't stop it. legalize it, take it out of the hands of the criminals, and tax it. if people want to do it, they're going to do it. the way i see it if your going to burn your self up on smack, then by all means go ahead. this is darwinism at it's best. let's take'm out of the gene pool.



    [ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: running with scissors ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 47
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by Outsider:

    <strong>



    If i could feed all this info into a software program and it gives me a result as to how this will work 5, 10 and 20 years down the line, I would. But such a program does not exist. Listen, your plan may work but I think it's the wrong way to approach it. When someone tries this plan out then we can see some results. Only until then will we see if it makes the problem better or worse.



    But you're not honestly telling me that heroin is not so bad a drug if it was cut and made cleanly? This is not pot, a relatively harmless drug that is not very addictive, this is heroin, highly addictive and dangerous. How do you know that if you give someone a cleaner and purer heroin that it won't make them MORE addictive and therefore they'll NEVER get off it no matter what treatments they receive? maybe the dirty impure heroin is the only thing making junkies resistant to total dependence on it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Switzerland. Look into it. They have a program like this.
  • Reply 19 of 47
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:

    <strong>i say legalize it all. you can't stop it. legalize it, take it out of the hands of the criminals, and tax it. if people want to do it, they're going to do it. the way i see it if your going to burn you self up on smack then by all means go ahead. this is darwinism at it's best. let's take'm out of the gene pool.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The only reason marijuana, herion, et al are illegal is because alcohol, tobacco, and various pharmaceutical companies had a bigger lobby.
  • Reply 20 of 47
    [quote]Originally posted by BR:

    <strong>



    The only reason marijuana, herion, et al are illegal is because alcohol, tobacco, and various pharmaceutical companies had a bigger lobby.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    true, but you can't forget the christian right either.
Sign In or Register to comment.