Attempting to make torture is stupid but check this one out

[RGBVideo]

Pekka, I'm reading public record of this law right now, and it appears you're right. If a private citizen produces a thing which can be used for producing drugs and sells it to a person, gang or an organisation which produces drugs, he can be given a jail sentence of 1/3 - 8 years.

Here's a link: http://www.eduskunta.fi/faktatmp/uta..._11_2006_p.htm

Here are the representatives who passed the proposal of this new law. I translated their parties so international audience can get a glimpse of how non-partisan the support for an idiotic proposal like this can be in Finnish politics:

chairman Tuija Brax /greens
vice-chairman Susanna Rahkonen /social democrats
Esko Ahonen /centre party
Leena Harkimo /national coalition
Lasse Hautala /centre party
Tatja Karvonen /centre party
Petri Neittaanmäki /centre party
Heli Paasio /social democrats
Lyly Rajala /national coalition
Jukka Roos /social democrats
Tero Rönni /social democrats
Petri Salo /national coalition
Pertti Salovaara /centre party
Minna Sirnö /left-wing alliance
Juhani Sjöblom /national coalition
Astrid Thors /swedish party

[Pekka]

Right. So you realize how stupid and even dangerous this new law is. Passed without a debate. Can you say no one stands up for your rights? And no, not for your rights to do drugs, but for your rights as in what the hell does this new law mean even..

The implications are hash. So now, you can have a house search on any basis. You don't actually have to have anything, but a jar or similar to be investigated. And you know how gung-ho our society is about pot, so we can bet our asses there's lots of problems for lots of people who a) didn't do anything and b) even if they were, the consequences are too harsh.

It affects to their remaining natural life in negative way. Once you get called, the court record is held at least as long as you live, meaning that even if you get fines of 10 euros, those court decisions will register you forever for drug criminal. Even if you make a jar.

I'm feeling much more a witch hunt than trying to prevent drug crimes. I don't care if you are pro or anti against pot, this new law makes no sense at all and people who passed this proposal and never questioned it should be the first ones to suffer for owning jars and bob marley record, a deadly combination of wrongful life.

[Pekka]

And we all know, that if you'd ever stand up to showcase how stupid this is, you will only face 'NOooo... NOOOO!... NOOOOOO!!!!!' arguments, there will be no debate, and if you ever try to have a debate, you are a drug user yourself, or if lucky, just a symphatizer, unfortunately that is almost a crime as well.

[Pekka]

And let's face it, people won't stop using pot because of this new law. HOWEVER this new law will make more people who think about growing paranoid, thus they just buy it instead. Less risky?

And now, we are again buying drugs from drug dealers, that might be attached to organized crime etc.

So was this law productive or counter productive? I just see nothing good coming out of this and I'd like to see some debate WITHOUT emotions. Which is impossible in this nation.

[Fake Boris]

[Pekka]

I'd like to emphasize that there was no debate nor need to modify or further analyze the implications of this new proposal. It was great is it came in. It passed by everyone, every freaking one. No one stood up and said anything.

I'm feeling extremely uncomfortable, and more so because how this passed. Without any debate. What the hell is wrong with this country? Where's the defendors of my rights, I guess they couldn't make it to work that day, huh? Or were they too afraid to say a word of logic, because they'd be put on a public smearing campagn after saying 'excuse.. but I'd like to talk more about this new proposal'.

Freaking pussies. Yet another reason why I don't support high taxes or big governments or their power projection on the rest of us. They should be there to serve our rights and enhance them, and make sure nothinfg happens to those rights. Instead, they come up with yet another set of rules that makes a citizen criminal, even if they didn't do any crimes that are of logic.

I mean, it's now a crime to be associated to another persons crime, growing pot for Pete's sake, even if you don't know that person, he just somehow got a jar in hands that you either made or sold him and he used that for a crime.

What's next.. car dealers are charged for other people's speeding and DUIs?

And don't get me wrong. This new law will enjoy vast popularity. Because it fights evil pot growers, known threat for little babies who want to get high after they listen to that rock'n'roll song.

And yet another reason why I won't be crying a lot when I step over the border and say hasta la vista.

[Meticulous Man]

Shhh, you'll get in trouble for attempted preparation of incitement to crime once our MPs pass a law making it illegal and a law that makes retroactive punishment possible

[RGBVideo]

I'd like to emphasize that there was no debate nor need to modify or further analyze the implications of this new proposal. It was great is it came in. It passed by everyone, every freaking one. No one stood up and said anything.

No. It hasn't been voted on the House floor yet, so it isn't an official law yet. The proposal has been only passed by the House law committee (which's members I just quoted for you) unanimously. You can realize this yourself by going here and searching for "HE 53/2006".

[Pekka]

Right.. I mean.. think about it. IF you for some reason have some items that might be used to grow pot, and you might not even know you have because you might not even know how to grow, you could be in for an investigation.

So, retroactive totally applies here, because when it was legal for you to buy those items yesterday, it is illegal for you to posses them today.

If so, where can people get refunds, since the shops that sells these stuff are clearly going down very soon?

And how can you say to a business that the business you established legally today will be criminal activity tomorrow. I mean they could be charged up their asses, because they sell to large amount of people. So that's like multiple huge felonies or so. But professional criminals should be happy, because they should get more action now, since no one wants to even go and buy a jar.

[Pekka]

VJ, ahh crap, you're right.

So maybe we will have one or two who will ask what is this all about, prolly law graduates who just wants to challenge the complicated implications. But it will pass. There's no way it won't pass. I will guarantee my both testicles that this will pass.

[RGBVideo]

Oh, and if you wonder what's their motive, the reason why law committee took the definition of "co-operating with a drug crime" law under revision; the officially provided explanation is this. Apparently, EU comission passed some principle proposal for an intracontinental war on drugs in 2004 which the House law committee is now using as an excuse for this law, which in turn can be used as an excuse for further government control (and even easy sabotage, in case some MP happens to own a large chunk of stocks of a competing company) of small businesses if passed. I eagerly await for the regulations which'll be enforced for fertilizer and jar retail -companies if this proposal becomes a law.

Further control of the economy combined with a vote which you can use to illustrate to older voters that you, as a Yea-voter of this, are "tough on drugs" = double-victory for an invididual MP voting for this. Politically, there is no downside.

[rah]

Originally posted by Pekka

The implications are hash.

I'm sure it was an honest mistake.

[Pekka]

VJ, I do share your view on what the purpose is, and it is that of control. But it is for your own good, and they prolly mean it too. Which makes it even more ****ed up.

And they definitely jumped on the opportunity. The rest of the EU has gone into more lenient direction with pot, at least mostly. So this just does not fit the picture. And it says that this new proposal is a lot 'tighter' than what the whole EU thing actually requests.

Just like with the whole Saarela case, you know what I'm talking about, and her horrible incompetency to think with common sense. Not saying you should be able to legally download copyrighted material, but again, we took a whole new route with how far you can go to the other direction. Direction that does not only make any sense but restricts your current rights. And abusing copyright laws never was really legal anyway. So what's the freaking point?

I'm really hating now, I mean.. I think we should let everyone decide for themselves if they want to buy a jar or not and what to do with it. When you smoke pot, then you commit a crime (ridiculous IMO, if you do it in your own house), if you grow, that's illegal anyway (which is IMO ridiculous if you grow it to yourself) but that wasn't enough now was it?

What the government is telling you is that we will pursue this thing with everything, even your rights are going to the gutter. It's not really a problem, but **** it, we don't like the idea of someone getting high with their own supply.

I mean, I think it's not only illogical, it's a showcase of how you are controlled. Basically, it is illegal for you to be high. TO be exact, if you get some smoke inside your head and never commit another crime than that, no one even knows about it and you were all alone, you would be doing a crime. How is that possible? is it illegal to get different vibes, or are the implications too much, as in other crime that is in the same territory, and if so, maybe we should battle those problems instead of making jar owners the worst enemies of the state.

I just don't like government control what so ever.

[RGBVideo]

If any opposition for this law comes up, we know what to except from supporters of the law: "This law is against drugs. Why aren't you for this law? You must be a drug-using hippie who wants to inject marijuana into our children". That works great on elderly citizens who have no idea what the law is about but have knee-jerk anti-drug opinions.

And even if the "aren't you tough against drugs" -talking point fails, I presume the "EU requires us to pass this law" -argument will come up. After that, fat chance there's going to be any opposition against this law proposal from any of the organised parties (read: all parties but the greens), except maybe from True Finns who'll vote against just to prove that they hate EU.

[Meticulous Man]

Parliamentary politics is a joke.