LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksEvidently, the company.Originally Posted by Punky
Evidently, the company.
Al...
Don't really want to have a go at you (as I've been reading up on some other threads here today) but IMO cannabis is no better or worse than the legal alternatives - cigarettes and alcohol obviously... The problem (again IMO) is that anyone abusing any substance is going to find it affects other aspects of their lives (and likely those around them) and that's the bad thing.
I've been googling around and am reading this at the moment:
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic.../marijuana.jsp
malfunction, do you smoke cannabis?
Al:
I don't (haven't in years) but I did. What I would call occasional to medium use... Up to when I was about half way through Uni. I was certainly drinking more than I was smoking at the time and I would honestly say that a night of 'toking' would leave you in a better state than a night of heavy drinking.
Having had this conversation with a friend of mine who is an HR manager, it does all come down to both company policy and your contract of employment. So as has been suggested you could be sacked even though you 'smoked' in a country where it was legal.
As for the rights and wrongs of all this there is really no point arguing about it. The current laws on 'drugs' are riddled with inconsistencies, based on historical imperatives, political double standards, half baked scientific research and dubious logical deductions.
At some point we as a society are going to have to wake up to the fact that either all 'drugs' and by this I mean anything that alters mood, perception or sobriety, including alcohol, cigarettes and perhaps even caffeine are made illegal. Or you allow controlled use of them all. As prohibition proved that you can't enforce a ban on these things, the latter is the only option. However, no government is going to have the 'balls' to implement such a policy and then follow through with the necessary changes to push our society in a direction where people don't feel such a need to escape from reality.
BTW Breaking the law is not immoral, breaking the strictures of your religion is. Whether it is unethical or not is altogether another argument
Maybe morality can be linked with religion (and I'm nost certainly not religious), but I would define morality is being able to tell the difference between right and wrong. Most people would argue that that itself is different for different people, but in my eyes breaking the law is wrong and therefore immoral.
Now, even though I disagree that a few people sitting around arguing can control this country I happen to agree with most current laws, including drug taking. So as Auran says, there's not point arguing about this as we're never gonna end coz different people feel differently about drugs...
Last edited by Allen; 24-02-2004 at 03:19 PM.
what if the law itself is immoral and wrong? should people still adhere to some law that they feel has no place in modern life and is restricting liberty and basic human rights freedom? if you feel a law is wrong, you shouldn't have to follow it IMO.
if war is the answer, then we are asking the wrong question
2 things i hate the most - xenophobia and the french
"chuffing"
True - but you should be prepared to face the consequences if found guillty of breaking that law.
why should you have to face the consequences for something you believe is right?! what happened to democracy?
if war is the answer, then we are asking the wrong question
2 things i hate the most - xenophobia and the french
"chuffing"
Well, sorry Punky, but until the majority of the population feel that drugs are good for you and can cause no harm at all to anyone then that law will probably still pass as being a law whether you like it or not, and therefore if you break it you could end up ruining your life... A criminal record is not something that goes away quickly, but that's your decision to make.
You have the right to think that the law is wrong, to voice your opinion and even the right to campaign against it. You don't have the right to break the law just because you don't agree with it - no matter how stupid it was. And if a law was truly that stupid then it's likely that the punishment would be minimal and / or the crime overlooked - IIRC some of the UK police forces have a semi-official decriminalisation policy on Cannabis for example (which I suppose would depend on circumstance - the amount involved, the attitude of the officer and the attitude / age, etc of the offender I suspect!).
the majority of the population were against invading Iraq (and too f*cking right!!) but it still went ahead. do you really think that the government listen to people's opinions? they do what their advisors tell them, engineering bullrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish to ensure they get their own way.
and as for the criminal record - don't worry, i've already got one (if a reprimand counts, that is).
if war is the answer, then we are asking the wrong question
2 things i hate the most - xenophobia and the french
"chuffing"
Al - sorry but I'd have to disagree on the finer points of that as well... No-one needs to feel that drugs are good for you - they just need to feel that decriminalisation or legalistaion is the best way forward for soceity... Decriminalisation's main benefits IMO would be:
- Police get to focus on something more important
- Habitual cannabis users don't have to go to a dealer to get it (they'd be able to grow their own in small amounts) thus cutting funding of criminal activity
Legalisation would further reduce the criminal element IMO - if there's a legal source of known un-cut gear for the equivalent cost why go illegal? It would also provide tax revenue - think how cheap cigs would be without all the duty.
For my 2p I'm in favour of decriminalisation of all drugs as long as they are for personal use only. I'm 99% in favour of the legalisation of cannabis but not convinced on harder drugs.
malfunction, thats too true mate. the gov't are going on about gettin rid of dealers, but they are not looking at the main cause of people needing dealers to get their weed - the fact that there is no legal, controlled supply. as long as it remains illegal, the dealers will remain. its a simple enough concept.
and Al - the majority of the population know alcohol is bad for you, but they don't go on about making drinkers criminals. its just what we are told is socially acceptable i.e. what can make plenty of cash for politicians to waste on weapons and murdering people in countries far away, using the taxes we pay.
peace
if war is the answer, then we are asking the wrong question
2 things i hate the most - xenophobia and the french
"chuffing"
So if alcohol and cigarettes are only legal to gain more tax, then why don't they legalise it and make even MORE tax then?
:edit: And you might be interested to know, it's illegal to be out on the streets drinking and it's also illegal to get drunk in a public house (though that law is obviously not re-inforced!). It's illegal to drink and drive and some people who drink excessively are violent (kids fighting mainly) and can get banged up for it. So a lot of drinkers can be criminals too.
Last edited by Allen; 24-02-2004 at 04:38 PM.
because there is no easy way to tax it, is there? its hard to grow tobacco, there is no black market for seeds that i'm aware of, and its hard to grow anyway. cannabis seeds are legal until germinated. how are you gonna keep track of every home-grower in the country? i mean, millions of people grow in this country at the moment (i known in Bristol alone, 10,000 people grow hydroponically, as well as soil-growers). the police don't know about these grows, so how are they gonna tax em when they are legal!? people ain't gonna come forward and pay for the 'priviledge' of something they were doing illegally and not funding the Gov't.
if war is the answer, then we are asking the wrong question
2 things i hate the most - xenophobia and the french
"chuffing"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
