OK micheal , maybe in the states that might happen but i don't think that would over here you only got to look at what the gov here is doing with Cigarettes no adverting or showing them in stores they have to be behind screens so you can't see them . The packs must be in plain wrapper no brands . And now there taxing the hell out of them witch i am against . They should do the same with grog too .

So maybe some common cents should be brought in and i spose what you say is a fair argument .

---

i give you 50% agree on that . The driving thing 100% should be same as drink drive

---

Oh ok i have no view on that . That's for you lot to sort out . Legalizing it in my view doesn't mean it will be sold every where which some have suggested .

I don't think it should be sold everywhere any way and i have trouble understanding the argument of decriminalizing it against legalizing it sounds to me like a bit of trying to have it both ways .

Well there are only a few places that have actually legalized it instead of just decriminalized. And in those places you do see that they actually try to sell as much as possible of it.

Look the problem with legalizing it is that you put the entire business chain of weed in the hands of capitalist who have a profit motive. That profit motive will drive them to maximize sales as much as they can. Maximizing sales means you want to sell it to as many people as possible, and that means advertisement and creating a wide range of products in which you include pot. So rather than just selling pot for people to put in bongs or smoke in joint, you are also going to make other products that contain it. You can see it clearly happening in Colorado.

When you only decriminalize the sale, possession and consumption of weed, you contain the profit motive. You severely limit the way you can sell weed, you keep the prices artificially high as production is still illegal and you keep the use of it pushed into some uncomfortable corner where a lot of people are not comfortable of going, thus erecting barriers for use. At the same time, people who still want their joints can still get them and it doesn't place much of a strain on the justice system. I think its a much better way of preventing the massive adoption of weed as some socially acceptable form of mood relief, like alcohol is today, but at the same time give people the freedom to make that decision for themselves.

The current law in the UK is as follows

Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, illegal drugs are placed into one of 3 classes - A, B or C. This is broadly based on the harms they cause either to the user or to society when they are misused. The class into which a drug is placed affects the maximum penalty for an offence involving the drug. For example, Class A drugs attract the most severe penalty as they are considered likely to cause the most serious harm. Drugs controlled under the Misuse of
Drugs Act are illegal to have, produce, give away or sell.

• Class A drugs include: heroin (diamorphine), cocaine (including crack), methadone, ecstasy (MDMA), LSD, and magic mushrooms.

If found guilty by a court of law of possessing Class A drugs you could go to prison for up to seven years and fined.

If you sell Class A drugs you could receive a life imprisonment.

• Class B includes: amphetamines, barbiturates, codeine, cannabis, cathinones (including mephedrone) and synthetic cannabinoids.

People found guilty of possessing a Class B drug could go to jail for up to five years and be fined.

Those caught and found guilty of trafficking a Class B drug can be sent to prison for up to 14 years.

Some people think having cannabis is less serious than other drugs, but if you're caught with cannabis the police will always take action.

• Class C includes: benzodiazepines (tranquilisers), GHB/GBL, ketamine, anabolic steroids and benzylpiperazines (BZP).

It is illegal to have, give away or deal in Class C drugs.

Maximum penalties for possession are two years in jail plus an unlimited fine.

Dealing or supplying could get you 14 years in jail plus an unlimited fine.

Not all drugs are illegal, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t harmful. For example, tobacco and alcohol can seriously damage your health. And recently new 'legal highs' have been developed to mimic the effects of illegal drugs like cocaine and ecstasy but are structurally different enough to avoid being classified as illegal substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act. However, they can still have dangerous side effects.

Some drugs do have a legitimate use, as a medicine, in research or in industry. To use, import or produce these drugs you need to obtain a licence from the Home Office.

To decriminalise a substance or legalise it means in effect the same thing i.e. if you are caught with it you will not get a criminal record.

The problem with dope-heads is that they have no regard for others. The excuses I've heard are totally laughable, the best being that they use it to get through life.

Personally, anyone found to be under its influence after causing or involved in a fatal accident should be charged with Murder (that's if they themselves live through it).

Now that argument is sensible Micheal but doesn't mean pot is as bad as cigarettes thou . A combination of both is .

---

The stupid spell checker and dictionary keeps coming up with that person and not the word i want ahhhhhhhh

---

Oh ok i have no view on that . That's for you lot to sort out . Legalizing it in my view doesn't mean it will be sold every where which some have suggested .

I don't think it should be sold everywhere any way and i have trouble understanding the argument of decriminalizing it against legalizing it sounds to me like a bit of trying to have it both ways .

Most times if you legalize some thing like pot or alcohol there are restrictions and rules and such and why i didn't see the diff in decriminalize against legalize .

Although it's probably a point of law.

---

That's funny as all the people i know use a bong and i bet i know a hell of a lot more than you do .

I don't know how many people you know, and I don't care. I'm just saying, all the people I know roll joints and avoid bongs. And I still know quite a few, given that my country is pretty much only known for its pretty liberal soft drug policy.

And also 3 joints is not the same a 25 fags a day i bet more tar and crap enter the lungs after 25 fags than 3 joints

Hmm I once read that one joint contains about 5 cigs worth of tar. So no, not 25, only 15. Thats still bad. And it gets worse when you take into account that a lot of people who smoke joints also smoke normal cigarettes, so they basically add those 15 cigarettes worth of tar on their normal cigarette consumption.

Hi Glenn,

As far as I am aware there is no rule that limits the numbers of posts per hour from anyone. However I would suggest that it is generally considered good etiquette on the forums to reply to multiple posts by doing so in one post with the content like this

@Chris - .....

@Sten - .....

@Kwsn - .....

And so on.

Multiple posts in a row from someone is often indicative that a poster is, for want of a better phrase, "going into one" which attracts Mods attention. I'm glad to hear that you are not upset, I cannot see any reason why you should be. But others are entitled to take an opposite view to things that you may feel strongly about. Calling people HIPPOCRITES is not likely to engender sensible discussion.

p.s. I think you are getting mixed up with Hippocrates an ancient Greek physician.The word is hypocrites.

It is widely known on here what I did before I drove trucks for living, but to remind you, I drove trains.

Did not know that. When you ass-u-me people know facts you don't say .....

That's funny seeing as it was mentioned on several threads, one of them being the PTSD thread itself.

Then again, I must write myself a 1000 lines...

...Do not assume people can read (Must be the pot they're using).

I wonder just how many of those in the USA arguing for Legalization of the use of Cannabis sativa realize they are arguing the Libertarian / State's Rights position?

Sorry Kong i don'y understand where your going with that one

OK, Glenn,

Libertarian position: People have the right to do as they wish, as long as it does not cause harm to others, even *IF* it causes harm to themselves.

State's Rights position: 'Cannabis sativa' possession/use is illegal under US Federal law, except under extremely restricted conditions. It is defined and regulated as a 'Schedule 1 Narcotic'.

If I remember correctly, 2 states have legalized its use under their State Law. Colorado and Washington State, I believe they are.

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution states that powers not explicitly granted by the constitution to the federal government nor forbidden by the Constitution to the States are reserved to the States and the People.

This is the crux of the State's Rights issue. Since the Constitution does NOT say that the Federal Government CAN regulate drugs, and the Constitution does NOT forbid the State Governments to do so, then the POWER to regulate drugs belongs to the State Governments, not the Federal Government.

There have been court cases, however, where the court has said the Federal Government DOES have this power, and that Federal law trumps State Law.

So, the Federal Government and the State Governments of Colorado and Washington are the two sides in a... urination contest between each other.

In theory, the State Governments have this power, but in practice the Federal Government does.

Where am I going with this?

I simply made an observation that many of the people that are arguing State's Rights on the issue of their 'wacky tobaccy' are overall Against State's Rights.

I find it funny in the extreme, Reefer Madness, as it were.

Chris i've been watching the T.v all day and i answered some of the posts just now because it's the first time today i've looked at some of them which are stupid and misleading and i don't need to calm down because i'm not upset .

Or are you saying we can only post so many posts per hour ?

---

Oh my....

Thank you very much :-)

Glenn, I really do suggest that you just calm down mate. That was four posts in a row just earlier trying to justify the use of Cannabis just because you do, and think it's OK.

No prob's Lynn i'm a pot head so i think it's safe too

Juat because you are a self confessed pot-head, does not mean that others are not entitled to take the opposite view. If it works for you, and you feel that you need it to live your life, then fine. Just stop banging the drum for your point of view.

As the OP I WILL NOT ask for this thread to be stopped, as a matter of personal principle. Nobody around here OWNS anything, it is all in the public domain, subject to the rules that are clearly published. If you carry on with this Glenn, it either will be stopped, or you will be, by the Moderators. Your choice.

I wonder just how many of those in the USA arguing for Legalization of the use of Cannabis sativa realize they are arguing the Libertarian / State's Rights position?

Sorry Kong i don'y understand where your going with that one

---

Its gone from bad to worse.

Now, discussion of various drug paraphernalia...

<grin>

This is quite an educational issue, all right, at least in the USA.

I don't thing you are going to be able to separate the political from the scientific.

I wonder just how many of those in the USA arguing for Legalization of the use of Cannabis sativa realize they are arguing the Libertarian / State's Rights position?

Any more HIPPOCRITE arguments and B/S

---

And also 3 joints is not the same a 25 fags a day i bet more tar and crap enter the lungs after 25 fags than 3 joints

---

That's funny as all the people i know use a bong and i bet i know a hell of a lot more than you do .

---