Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's in black and white: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13624303

Personally, I'm all in favour of de-criminalising. Tax and Regulation could work. Within the UK it could work with us being an island, plus it could bring much needed growth to rural areas!

I knew the southern border states in the USA were bad, but after watching a documentary, I didn't realise how bad things were. Where is the modern day John Wayne to rally the nation with a Green-Beret style film? yeah! But seriously, I feel for all the thousands who have died.

The war on drugs is outdated and deprecated. We now have the war on terror. After the war on drugs is completely phased out, we'll begin steps toward phasing out the war on terror and bring the "war on privacy" into full swing because we'll be done legislating the framework for it by then.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, can anyone tell me why the US government now bestows titles belonging to Slavic monarchy?

Mhm, Cannabis isn't bad for you any more than Cigarettes are. Alcohol is worse in all cases, which is hilarious.

The only reason Cocaine use is still pretty low is because it is expensive as feth.

The War on Drugs is a joke.

Pretty much. Why is it that two of the worst drugs, Tobacco and Alcohol, are legal, but nothing else is.

The War on Drugs was all just a waste of time and money.

daedalus wrote:Also, can anyone tell me why the US government now bestows titles belonging to Slavic monarchy?

Either because it sounds cool, or some kind of monarch-envy.

I hope the War on Drugs does come to an end. The whole thing has been a futile exercise in Prohibition 2.0 and ending this foolish and misguided campaign is he first step towards decriminalizing something that should never have been illegal in the first place.

htj wrote:

daedalus wrote:Also, can anyone tell me why the US government now bestows titles belonging to Slavic monarchy?

Either because it sounds cool, or some kind of monarch-envy.

I thought monarchy was one of the reasons why our people and yours had that little spat a few hundred years ago.

Maybe I'm too uptight, but I'd really rather we would have kept allusions to royalty outside of our government.

What title are you referring to?

daedalus wrote:

htj wrote:

daedalus wrote:Also, can anyone tell me why the US government now bestows titles belonging to Slavic monarchy?

Either because it sounds cool, or some kind of monarch-envy.

I thought monarchy was one of the reasons why our people and yours had that little spat a few hundred years ago.

Maybe I'm too uptight, but I'd really rather we would have kept allusions to royalty outside of our government.

Well, you know, when you can't have something, you want it all the more.

It's a stupid term, and it sounds more like someone who sells drugs. Surely a drug tsar is higher ranking that a drugs baron, but on the same side?

Oh, Czar/Tzar/whatever. Yeah, I hated that title.

Apparently, it's a reference to the absolute authority given to the individual in question within their department, coined by Nixon in its modern usage, though it was previously used as a denigrating term for someone perceived as overzealous and dictatorial, apparently as early as the 1880's.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Apparently, it's a reference to the absolute authority given to the individual in question within their department, coined by Nixon in its modern usage, though it was previously used as a denigrating term for someone perceived as overzealous and dictatorial, apparently as early as the 1880's.

Oh, well it's quite appropriate then, in the second sense.

Honestly, they should just de-criminalise it. Its a waste of money because people are too stupid to listen.

Let these junkie scum die off in their own filth. De-criminalisation will do nothing to help the damage drugs will do; but thats fine.

Mhm, Cannabis isn't bad for you any more than Cigarettes are

It won't give you cancer...but it'll make you go insane later in life if a person smokes the same amount as cigarettes (And people honestly think the average public is smart enough to not do that?)

Decriminalize and legalize cannabis is my vote. Never touched the stuff, but I know more than enough that have/do. The other categories can stay illegal in my book.

Mr Hyena wrote:Honestly, they should just de-criminalise it. Its a waste of money because people are too stupid to listen.

Let these junkie scum die off in their own filth. De-criminalisation will do nothing to help the damage drugs will do; but thats fine.

Mhm, Cannabis isn't bad for you any more than Cigarettes are

It won't give you cancer...but it'll make you go insane later in life if a person smokes the same amount as cigarettes (And people honestly think the average public is smart enough to not do that?)

lol

I'm not a junkie, I do it for fun, it has never had a negative effect on me.

Nobody smokes the same amount of weed as Cigarettes, if you think that, then you're delusional.

People make a living off the drug, if it was legalized, it would encourage proper education and jobs for youths in downtrodden areas.

Oh come now...all scientific research clearly points out that smoking weed makes one insane...haven't you people been paying attention?...




....The "War on Drugs" is and always has been a huge waste of time, money and life.

The war on drugs is a make work project.

Mr Hyena wrote:It won't give you cancer...but it'll make you go insane later in life if a person smokes the same amount as cigarettes (And people honestly think the average public is smart enough to not do that?)

By which you mean, there are studies that show a mild correlation between use and schizophrenia, barely outside the margin of error for the sample size? You might as well look at the fact that almost every schizophrenic smokes tobacco, and assume that tobacco causes schizophrenia.

Can anyone predict the impact that legalizing pot may have?
On one hand you take away a huge part of the organized crimes income, and thus reducing the impact it have on our security.
On the other hand: Todays young people don't have access to alcohol, but anyone can buy from a dealer, a dealer that also sells coke and repackaged ratpoison.
Chances are that young people might be tempted by other drugs while there, and then lay the fundament for a glorious career in drug abuse.
My point is that if you control pot you don't take the dealer away, but the dealer only has harder drugs to sell thus starting a young person a step up the latter.

I don't think I can predict the outcome, perhaps my concern comes from a lack of confidence in the teenagers of today.

I like to smoke pot sometimes, but I hate the fact that I have to support scum to do so, or break the law by growing my own. I would love to be able to buy pot legal, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's the best way to go about it.

Not really sure what your argument is snapsepaven. what is commonly observed is that kids who just want to try some pot (a relatively harmless drug) often get coerced by the dealer into trying harder drugs, if weed was legal the kids wouldn't go to the dealer in the first place.

Theres also the fact that the effects of pot differ wildly from the effects of many other 'hard' drugs, kids that are into pot would probably be less likely to try other drugs, by virtue of the fact that they result in a different kind of high that they are not necessarily looking to experience.

corpsesarefun wrote:Not really sure what your argument is snapsepaven. what is commonly observed is that kids who just want to try some pot (a relatively harmless drug) often get coerced by the dealer into trying harder drugs, if weed was legal the kids wouldn't go to the dealer in the first place.

Perhaps.
I'm concerned about what the stepstone drug is, my view is that it's easier to bounce off pot than it is to bounce off harder drugs. Teenagers are going to push the boundries, and as I said I might lag the confidence in them, as in "it's not that the dealer sells harmless pot, but that he sells stuff I shouldn't have that is alluring".

In some ways its two bags of piss.

snapsepaven wrote: Teenagers are going to push the boundries

Why?

Kragura wrote:

snapsepaven wrote: Teenagers are going to push the boundries

Why?

Because that's what we do...

Kragura wrote:

snapsepaven wrote: Teenagers are going to push the boundries

Why?

Because damn it, we are teenagers.

I would smoke a little pot if it was decriminalized, but not as much as some of the kids at my school do right now. Maybe once per every two weeks, just to cool off.

...And so you should.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Push boundries I mean.

Crablezworth wrote:The war on drugs is a make work project.

Its much more than that. Its the security industrial complex. If you added in cops, the courts, all the fed legal agencies, all the lawyers making money, the prison guards and all the contractors, it would be interesting to see how that stacks up against any other US enterprise.

purplefood wrote:

Kragura wrote:

snapsepaven wrote: Teenagers are going to push the boundries

Why?

Because that's what we do...

Why? why would YOU push the boundaries. why would YOU move on to harder drugs. why would YOU agree do do that.

Frazzled wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:The war on drugs is a make work project.

Its much more than that. Its the security industrial complex. If you added in cops, the courts, all the fed legal agencies, all the lawyers making money, the prison guards and all the contractors, it would be interesting to see how that stacks up against any other US enterprise.

Which leads to the question how much of the "War on Drugs" is about "Keeping the public safe" ( ) and how much is about keeping a failing machine " Alive" ?

Kragura wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Kragura wrote:

snapsepaven wrote: Teenagers are going to push the boundries

Why?

Because that's what we do...

Why? why would YOU push the boundaries. why would YOU move on to harder drugs. why would YOU agree do do that.

I don't know why... it's just what teens do...
Quite a few of my friends stopped drinking for a while after they urned 18 because there was no challenge in getting served.
Personally i wouldn't move onto harder drugs but that's just me.