Supras Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 This is the only half hour in the day I will be on this site. Unlucky. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 This is the only half hour in the day I will be on this site. Unlucky. I take it you just mean today cos, you know, you've got a fairly hefty 'contribution' to this thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 4. Yeah, legalise everything, that would cut down on crime because there wouldn't be any. Froggratt had the best possible scenario for access to 'good' drugs and fucked it up. Even the price didn't drive him to crime, the craving did. The government have a duty of care which means not putting us in this position in the first place. Your first three points are mewling nonsense, and so if your fifth. Your fourth is incredible, it implies the war on drugs is down to a "duty of care". Lets discuss this more, I want to hear more about your proposed vision. You say you "don't oppose" legalising soft drugs but do oppose legalising "hard ones". Please explain the exact distinction and outline what are soft drugs and what are hard. By making this post short and to the point, maybe we'll hear more about what you think. I've explained my vision in depth already tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 You don't get off that easy, everything is 'mewling nonsense' is it ? I'm still waiting on your 'specific' proof that I've admitted that I'm out of my depth blah blah blah. Oh and there seems to plenty more milage in Dr. Froggatt due to your unwillingness to accept that a spiralling drug addict got the sack for forgery and stealing due to his habit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 You don't get off that easy, everything is 'mewling nonsense' is it ? I'm still waiting on your 'specific' proof that I've admitted that I'm out of my depth blah blah blah. Oh and there seems to plenty more milage in Dr. Froggatt due to your unwillingness to accept that a spiralling drug addict got the sack for forgery and stealing due to his habit. Expected, but since I'm spent 28 pages responding to queries, it's about time we hear exactly what you think. Your first three points are mewling nonsense, and so if your fifth. Your fourth is incredible, it implies the war on drugs is down to a "duty of care". Lets discuss this more, I want to hear more about your proposed vision. You say you "don't oppose" legalising soft drugs but do oppose legalising "hard ones". Please explain the exact distinction and outline what are soft drugs and what are hard. By making this post short and to the point, maybe we'll hear more about what you think. I've explained my vision in depth already tbh. In fact, here is my first response to you on this thread: Completely unworkable? You mean, exactly like the current system then? You'll question will be answered shortly, but if that is the biggest objection to drug legalisation here are mine to the war on drugs. - Imprisoning of people for the mere crime of consumption. - Causing untold deaths and misery by moving the supply to criminals. - Forcing users to consume unsafe products. - Billions spent worldwide, to absolutely no positive effect. So if you disagree with legalisation and think it is "unworkable", what do you propose? What happens if you can't afford a product? You don't buy it. Simple, really. Of course, users will have immediate help should they decide to stop using the drug, and a structured plan of decreasing usage will be in place to wean them off the drug. It already happens in Canada, addiction can be cured by a structured process of decreasing dosage. Of course, it'd would require a lengthy and detailed process to develop a pricing structure, but given the dosage you can buy is greatly restricted, and the almost non existent costs of production, I struggle to envision a situation when you won't be able to afford it. Unlike the current, clearly insane, policy of prohibition I would never punish users for buying from illegal sources of heroin. These sources will be significantly more expensive, and of far reduced quality, so why in the hell would anyone buy it? The government did not create the addiction, they provided a safe product to the overwhelming benefit of their citizens. I don't see any valid reasoning for making it "cost prohibitive". It wouldn't so much be a shop, as a government health facility. Which already exists. I think the majority of the population, idiotic though the masses are, have realised that the war on drugs is a ludicrous and unworkable policy. The zeitgeist, certainly amongst the young, is going towards drug legalisation. Not just here, but throughout the world. But of course I can, and do, play a part in educating people on this issue. Over the past few years why don't you look at the reaction to these threads? The zeitgeist is moving, and very quickly too. Here's Nick Clegg - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/08/clegg-britain-must-join-drugs-debate Finding people who are passionately in favour of the war on drugs is extremely difficult, and has been for years. These people don't exist. If you understand the war on drugs, you don't agree with it. Why would "heroin shops" be expensive? But still, even if we do consider the cost of setting up additional health facilities, it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the policing costs of the war on drugs, the cost of imprisoning users and the cost of lost production from addicts. The economic argument is unequivocally in favour. The Pro camp don't need to present their argument, I'm more than happy to do so, but I want someone to tell me why they think people who voluntarily consume drugs should be imprisoned? Can anyone even attempt to answer that question? Those opposed should be standing up and justifying the complete failure of their policy. And would drug users who commit crimes be punished? Well, obviously. I can't help but feel this remains a prefect response, and you still haven't even attempted any of the questions posed here. Kinda feel like I've wasted the last 8 pages given you aren't even trying. Here are my questions again: Your first three points are mewling nonsense, and so if your fifth. Your fourth is incredible, it implies the war on drugs is down to a "duty of care". Lets discuss this more, I want to hear more about your proposed vision. You say you "don't oppose" legalising soft drugs but do oppose legalising "hard ones". Please explain the exact distinction and outline what are soft drugs and what are hard. By making this post short and to the point, maybe we'll hear more about what you think. I've explained my vision in depth already tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 A corner stone of your scheme is that you told us that there were people who'd taken drugs for years and it hadn't affected other than the illegality. Its been demonstrated that thats bollocks (thank you Dr Froggy courtesy of supras, an OG by anybodies standard). Thats it, case closed, hoisted by your own petard etc. For you to still think that you've got any kind of argument (thanks for the repost that now doesn't mention your examples of doctors self medicating) says more about your attitude to our exchanges. Grow up and accept that you've got it wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 A corner stone of your scheme is that you told us that there were people who'd taken drugs for years and it hadn't affected other than the illegality. Its been demonstrated that thats bollocks (thank you Dr Froggy courtesy of supras, an OG by anybodies standard). Thats it, case closed, hoisted by your own petard etc. For you to still think that you've got any kind of argument (thanks for the repost that now doesn't mention your examples of doctors self medicating) says more about your attitude to our exchanges. Grow up and accept that you've got it wrong. That was never a cornerstone of my scheme, at any point. But anyway: I want to hear more about your proposed vision. You say you "don't oppose" legalising soft drugs but do oppose legalising "hard ones". Please explain the exact distinction and outline what are soft drugs and what are hard. By making this post short and to the point, maybe we'll hear more about what you think. I've explained my vision in depth already tbh. I got it wrong? Is that guy for real? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) That was never a cornerstone of my scheme, at any point. But anyway:It kinda was, you were shouting from the rooftops about how doctors (in particular) had been taking drugs for years to no ill effect and this was proof it was feasible. The example you generously provided has been shown to be a degenerate addict who was driven to forgery and theft to feed his habit. Why you persist with this is beyond me.The only reason you carry on with this charade is because I summoned you back and you couldn't help yourself, even when I made a joke about beetlejuicing you back it took 7 minutes for your reply. Get over yourself, its your ego that dragged you back, you were happy to let it slide until then. Oh, and if we're carrying on with this debate or whatever it is, then you still need to furnish your examples of where I've admitted I'm out of my depth, otherwise I feel your 'word' can't be trusted. Edited February 20, 2014 by chomp my root 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 It kinda was, you were shouting from the rooftops about how doctors (in particular) had been taking drugs for years to no ill effect and this was proof it was feasible. The example you generously provided has been shown to be a degenerate addict who was driven to forgery and theft to feed his habit. Why you persist with this is beyond me. The only reason you carry on with this charade is because I summoned you back and you couldn't help yourself, even when I made a joke about beetlejuicing you back it took 7 minutes for your reply. Get over yourself, its your ego that dragged you back, you were happy to let it slide until then. Oh, and if we're carrying on with this debate or whatever it is, then you still need to furnish your examples of where I've admitted I'm out of my depth, otherwise I feel your 'word' can't be trusted. No it wasn't, I didn't even mention it till about page 28 in this current debate. And I can't be any more specific as to why its a pertinent example. Beetlejuice? You've fucking lost it. Anyway, given this was my first response to you on page 22 (page fucking 22) and you still haven't provided any semblance of an alternative vision, you appear to have utterly failed in this debate. Completely unworkable? You mean, exactly like the current system then? You'll question will be answered shortly, but if that is the biggest objection to drug legalisation here are mine to the war on drugs. - Imprisoning of people for the mere crime of consumption. - Causing untold deaths and misery by moving the supply to criminals. - Forcing users to consume unsafe products. - Billions spent worldwide, to absolutely no positive effect. So if you disagree with legalisation and think it is "unworkable", what do you propose? What happens if you can't afford a product? You don't buy it. Simple, really. Of course, users will have immediate help should they decide to stop using the drug, and a structured plan of decreasing usage will be in place to wean them off the drug. It already happens in Canada, addiction can be cured by a structured process of decreasing dosage. Of course, it'd would require a lengthy and detailed process to develop a pricing structure, but given the dosage you can buy is greatly restricted, and the almost non existent costs of production, I struggle to envision a situation when you won't be able to afford it. Unlike the current, clearly insane, policy of prohibition I would never punish users for buying from illegal sources of heroin. These sources will be significantly more expensive, and of far reduced quality, so why in the hell would anyone buy it? The government did not create the addiction, they provided a safe product to the overwhelming benefit of their citizens. I don't see any valid reasoning for making it "cost prohibitive". It wouldn't so much be a shop, as a government health facility. Which already exists. I think the majority of the population, idiotic though the masses are, have realised that the war on drugs is a ludicrous and unworkable policy. The zeitgeist, certainly amongst the young, is going towards drug legalisation. Not just here, but throughout the world. But of course I can, and do, play a part in educating people on this issue. Over the past few years why don't you look at the reaction to these threads? The zeitgeist is moving, and very quickly too. Here's Nick Clegg - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/08/clegg-britain-must-join-drugs-debate Finding people who are passionately in favour of the war on drugs is extremely difficult, and has been for years. These people don't exist. If you understand the war on drugs, you don't agree with it. Why would "heroin shops" be expensive? But still, even if we do consider the cost of setting up additional health facilities, it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the policing costs of the war on drugs, the cost of imprisoning users and the cost of lost production from addicts. The economic argument is unequivocally in favour. The Pro camp don't need to present their argument, I'm more than happy to do so, but I want someone to tell me why they think people who voluntarily consume drugs should be imprisoned? Can anyone even attempt to answer that question? Those opposed should be standing up and justifying the complete failure of their policy. And would drug users who commit crimes be punished? Well, obviously. You might think I'd feel bad about how I've treated this guy, he certainly seems deeply upset about it, but it's the only way he'll learn to stop talking shit about things he (admits) to not knowing much about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 talking shit about things he (admits) to not knowing much about.Digging the 'smack talk', still waiting on your 'facts driven' 'very specific' proof on this one and I think its the third time of asking so.......Oh, and you still think your BFF Froggy is a shining example of doctors who take heroin and 'functioning' is a shining example to support your drugs for those that can pay policy ? Not got so many pals backing you now I notice..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Digging the 'smack talk', still waiting on your 'facts driven' 'very specific' proof on this one and I think its the third time of asking so....... Oh, and you still think your BFF Froggy is a shining example of doctors who take heroin and 'functioning' is a shining example to support your drugs for those that can pay policy ? Not got so many pals backing you now I notice..... Yes I do think that, and I've explained exactly why. Now can you explain why you've spent the last 8 pages avoiding every single point in my post? You admit to knowing less about this topic than I do, why don't you leave? Don't you think you've been embarrassed enough? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Yes I do think that, and I've explained exactly why. Now can you explain why you've spent the last 8 pages avoiding every single point in my post? You admit to knowing less about this topic than I do, why don't you leave? Don't you think you've been embarrassed enough? Ah, we've circled back to having a pop to try and provoke a reaction have we ? I'm going to go with 'Rattled' in P & B terms. You're posts have a point do they ? I thought you just liked to argue for the sake of it. Froggatt still a functioning high level addict ? It doesn't really matter when you introduced him to the debate, you made him your poster boy. Deal with it Still awaiting your proof that I've stated that I'm out of my depth ? Be very.........'specific' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Ah, we've circled back to having a pop to try and provoke a reaction have we ? I'm going to go with 'Rattled' in P & B terms. You're posts have a point do they ? I thought you just liked to argue for the sake of it. Froggatt still a functioning high level addict ? It doesn't really matter when you introduced him to the debate, you made him your poster boy. Deal with it Still awaiting your proof that I've stated that I'm out of my depth ? Be very.........'specific' Why have you spent the last 8 pages talking nonsense, and not once outlined an alternative vision as my first reply to you asked? Be specific. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 So, it's going rather well in Colorado... http://rt.com/usa/sell-weed-colorado-county-tax-753/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurph Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Jamaica looks to be giving it the green light soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Jamaica looks to be giving it the green light soon. LIghting the green surely. Peter Tosh would be happy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peteryes Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 The soft Scottish water is the perfect ph to grow the most spectacular indoor horticulture. Take it easy skanking 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxsta Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 I'm baked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dON2VJh2h68 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) The worst reason for legalizing but unfortunately the one most likely to cause it's legalization. From Moneyweek It’s hard to imagine that Bob Marley would have had much time for the private equity industry. He wouldn’t have thought much of spreadsheets and pie charts, and the only options he was interested in involved having a good time. But that hasn’t stopped the private equity boys taking an interest in the greatest of all reggae singers. This month we learned that the Marley estate has teamed up with Privateer Holdings, an American buy-out firm, to launch Marley Natural, which it aims to turn into the first global cannabis company. The power of the Marley name – he was, after all, virtually synonymous with the weed, and campaigned for its legalisation – will, they believe, resonate powerfully with smokers everywhere. The deal reflects the way that the movement to legalise cannabis is steadily progressing in the US. So far, it has been legalised in Washington and Colorado, and other states now permit it for medicinal purposes (which can, of course, be fairly widely interpreted, especially late on a Friday night). What used to be an entirely underground, illegal industry is starting to go mainstream, with plenty of legal cannabis companies being set up to supply the market. Marley Natural aims to be the first global brand, with big money behind it, but no doubt it will be joined by many others in time. Buy British for your bong That raises a question for the UK. The debate on the drug is usually framed in medical or ethical terms, and those are important issues. But there is also an implication for industrial policy: if there are going to be global cannabis companies, wouldn’t it be better if they were British? After all, there is no question this is going to be big business, whether you approve of it or not. The UN estimates the global cannabis market, both legal and illegal, to be worth about $150bn a year. In the US, Privateer sees it as ultimately being worth in the region of $50bn a year. The figures are not terribly accurate at this stage – the dealers and consumers are not yet very keen on filling in forms or reporting output statistics. But any way you look at it, it is going to be a lot of money. Whether cannabis is eventually legalised everywhere remains to be seen. But trends that start in the US usually go global. What we view as acceptable or not can change a lot over time. Fifty years ago, homosexuality was illegal, but it was fine to drink a bottle of wine and then drive home. Now we have gay marriage, but drink driving is unacceptable. So there is no particular reason why attitudes to the drug shouldn’t continue to change radically as well. If they do, the industry is completely up for grabs. The companies that have been set up are tiny. Many of them don’t even have bank accounts, because while US law allows you to sell the drug in some states, it doesn’t always allow you to bank the profits. But over a few years, legal cannabis will probably evolve into a standard consumer goods industry, with a few global giants establishing dominant brands, in the way Budweiser or Heineken have in beer, or Marlboro in tobacco. That will take time, money and expertise, but it will certainly be rewarding for the people who get it right. Britain likes to think of itself as at the forefront of growing industries, and this is the kind of thing we are good at. From Diageo in spirits to BAT in tobacco, the UK has a record of building global consumer-goods giants in products that are often addictive and not especially good for you. And it’s not as if we are exactly short on singers of our own. If the Marley brand can go global, how about the Pink Floyd brand? Or the Keith Richards brand? Either would seem just as powerful. From ethics to economics What that would require, of course, is for the drug to be legalised in the UK. So long as it is banned, legitimate companies can’t be started. Right now, whether it should be allowed or not is viewed as simply an ethical or medical issue, which is fair enough. But as it gradually becomes legal elsewhere, then it becomes an economic question as well. After all, the government gives plenty of support to industries that are morally questionable. The arms exporters, in which the UK is a leading player, are not obviously superior to cannabis distributors. Neither are alcohol or tobacco manufacturers. It is hard to argue that our bankers have really made the world a better place, but the government gives them plenty of support. Even if you disapprove of pot personally, that is no reason why the UK should not be a player in the industry. Legal cannabis could generate lots of jobs, and plenty of wealth for shareholders, as well as taxes. Colorado just gave its citizens a tax rebate because it was collecting so much money from the industry. David Cameron has already promised tax cuts in this country without having much idea of how to pay for them – this might well be the solution. But having the first mover’s advantage will be crucial. If the UK got in early, it could create some major companies. If it doesn’t, the US and other countries will. Do we want to miss that opportunity? Edited November 28, 2014 by Suspect Device 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaldo Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Of course it should be legal: http://youtu.be/Rl-rcmNLv8k 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.