Dope: Should it be legalised.

[Whaleboy]

Trajanus: A good reason why such limitations suck. In the UK, i want to see a situation with marijuana that is like that with tobacco today.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Trajanus
In Belgium, you're allowed to have weed, just not more than 5 grams or sommething.

The funny thing is, as you're not allowed to have more than that amount, the dealers are still doing illegal business because they have bigger amounts (there are no dealers with just 5 grams I think ).

===> The whole thing is useless.

You're only allowed to smoke it in private areas, so not in public.
Naturally that's another stupid law because the cops don't know you're smoking pot anyway if you're doing it in private so what does it matter.

Yeah, same thing in Canada. Its legal up to 30 grams (or maybe its 15, I forget), or about an ounce. But of course dealers have way way way more than that, so its still illegal to sell, just not to buy. Kind of a catch 22 type of thing.

Its just so we can pretend we're all liberal and hip, when for all practical purposes, we're not very much different than the US.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Are all pot smokers like this? No. Though I seem to see a lot more losers who smoke pot than scientists.

Or maybe the scientists are the losers.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Trajanus: A good reason why such limitations suck. In the UK, i want to see a situation with marijuana that is like that with tobacco today.

Where something like 75 or 90 percent of high schoolers have used it by their senior year?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Trajanus: A good reason why such limitations suck. In the UK, i want to see a situation with marijuana that is like that with tobacco today.

I want to see them the same too. Both legal to buy, sell, carry and smoke in private. Both illegal to smoke in public places. People should be allowed to smoke dope, but I should be allowed not to smoke dope.

Oh, and both should be taxed to the hilt. The average smoker spends far far more of the NHS's money than the average non-smoker. Add a high tax to smoking, and it both disuades those from doing it, and more importantly means smokers pay the full cost of their actions. Either that of force smokers to have private healthcare. I believe in basic healthcare for all, but it shouldn't be abused. If you choose to smoke, you should be choosing to pay the cost of it too. I shouldn't be able to decide if someone else smokes, but I shouldn't be forced to pay for their choice either.

[Flip McWho]

The over-ruling passions upon which my logical arguement was based (the logical arguement which justified, to others, the passions) will remain intact. the point of debate, to me, is to blitz the logic and expose the passions directly.

Sounds a bit like blind faith to me.

Make America, America, buy german.

I reckon just legalise it the same as cigarettes. Same rules apply.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Ummm, dude, I'm probably the most pro-cannabis person on this forum .

I dont know what its like in other countries, but here if you go to a dealer, he will likely introduce you to harder stuff, as is my experience. I used to get around that by growing my own, until I found the ignominious Eddy .

I'm not qualified to talk about cocaine or heroin, since I don't know much about them. I always assumed them to be more dangerous and addictive. Still, the libertarian argument would have them legalised, thus I think they should, but I'd never take heroin and cocaine is crappy.

Of course. What I meant is that there will always be the mainstream drug from which the dealer will introduce you to the others- which, by the way, are only called "harder" because of propaganda.

(exception: we may consider the purely chemical, highly "mysterious" rave drugs to be harder. But that would be out of non-disclosure of its contents.)

That's a funny situation really: we've got the weed lovers, who are afraid to try anything else because the brainwash they're put through in school has convinced them that drugs are hard, who end up discriminating the other drugs as a defensive tool to protect their own. And it works, because guess what? The fundamentalist anti-drugs are now running campaigns to tell us that weed is not a soft drug!

Gotta love the irony.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Nah. All 'drugs' should be legalized. In public, private, and at the workplace (if the employer allows it. of course its his perogative you authoritarian liberty-haters )

And don't tax it. Sales taxes are just taxes on the poor. I say eliminate sales tax completly and reduce income taxes.

[Zero]

I believe that all drugs should be legalized.

However, I can name quite a few people that will lose their part time jobs on campus if that were to happen. I dont really want harm on people I know... so legalization is a bad thing personally.

[Whaleboy]

Oh, and both should be taxed to the hilt. The average smoker spends far far more of the NHS's money than the average non-smoker. Add a high tax to smoking,

I concur, this would generate more revenue than forcing smokers into private healthcare. Nonetheless, I recall that taxes on tobacco in UK are more than sufficient to pay for the cost of smoking to the NHS, though I may well be mistaken, in which case, increase the taxes.

People should be allowed to smoke dope, but I should be allowed not to smoke dope.

Naturally, smokers in public are actively impeding non-smokers. I don't believe this extends to private property, like bars, as they are under private ownership, and the customers are "guests" of the owners. Thats a small detail of course.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I believe that all drugs should be legalized.

However, I can name quite a few people that will lose their part time jobs on campus if that were to happen. I dont really want harm on people I know... so legalization is a bad thing personally.

I too have a bunch of part timers on my campus, but they wouldnt lose their jobs if it was legalized. They would simply have to reduce prices, and quality would have to go up. A win win situation!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Naturally, smokers in public are actively impeding non-smokers. I don't believe this extends to private property, like bars, as they are under private ownership, and the customers are "guests" of the owners. Thats a small detail of course.

People smoke cigs in the street and cigs cause cancer while MJ doesnt.

[JohnT]

Naturally, smokers in public are actively impeding non-smokers. I don't believe this extends to private property, like bars, as they are under private ownership, and the customers are "guests" of the owners. Thats a small detail of course.

You can't ban smoking in bars in the UK for this reason?

Interesting, here in the US you can pretty much ban it everywhere except in homes.

[Whaleboy]

People smoke cigs in the street and cigs cause cancer while MJ doesnt.

Open to debate. While I am pro-cannabis, I have conceded that it is harmful to ones health. A good point nonetheless, though of course, I do not believe that smokers should be allowed to smoke in public.

You can't ban smoking in bars in the UK for this reason?

Well, its a private establishment, but I dont know where the law stands. I take issue with the totalitarian stance of the USA.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I recall that taxes on tobacco in UK are more than sufficient to pay for the cost of smoking to the NHS, though I may well be mistaken, in which case, increase the taxes.

It is very hard to measure. I think the taxes should be slightly higher, because the costs of treatment are huge, and most smokers will need some form of smoking related treatment at some point in the smoking lives.

Naturally, smokers in public are actively impeding non-smokers. I don't believe this extends to private property, like bars, as they are under private ownership, and the customers are "guests" of the owners. Thats a small detail of course.

Not in pubs. Pubs are "public houses", and thus are public areas. Also, you're definition could also extend to shops, restaurants and other public places. I would consider them public, and so would support a ban on smoking in them, however I can see the argument as for private property. It depends on the situation IMHO. There could be a situation where you need a license to allow smoking there, like we currently have with alcohol. Places open to the public need a license to allow drinking on-site.