Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[grooviechickie]

I'd say they probably already can!

Apparently they can't...

This is interesting.

[Nick 2]

It's been abrogated in NSW - The Premier State as well. There's still sentencing for encouraging others to commit suicide though, for example as a part of a suicide pact.

oh god damn it, you mean trolling emos is illegal? what will i do with my spare time now?

[Pertinax]

I'm very interested in hearing that some of you think that some drugs should be legalised and others not.

If alcohol is legal and cigarettes (nicotine) are legal, why shouldn't every drug be legal?

Bear in mind that if they were legal and were produced in labs and had labelling regulations attached (like alcohol or any other legal drug does, indicating the level of active ingredient) there would be less chance of adverse reactions or events.

If we say, lets legalise everything but control the amount that is available in order to protect the end user from themselves, why don't we do that with alcohol?

 

[grooviechickie]

I should also say that I think smoking pot should be strongly discouraged. I smoked heavily for a while but would never touch it now as I see how much better my life is now.

Well, there are many adults who use drugs in moderation (alcohol, pot etc) and are happily living life with no issue. Should they be penalised for the stupid fuckers who get hooked?

It's simple - alcohol consumption is worse for you in many respects than smoking green shit, yet one is socially sanctified and legal so it's "okay".

[Chromefox]

I'm very interested in hearing that some of you think that some drugs should be legalised and others not.

If alcohol is legal and cigarettes (nicotine) are legal, why shouldn't every drug be legal?

Well, how often does someone high on pot go on a killing rampage in comparison to someone wacked out on crack? Cigarettes and alcohol already have a worse effect on both the body and the brain than weed, but the same can't be said for any matter of hardcore drugs. We're a society defined by self destruction, and we're doing such a good job of it already, do we really need more ways to accomplish it?

[neo]

unfortunately we'd be swamped with Americans coming up to take advantage of the slack laws.

I thought that happens already You guys pretty much supply the US with pot. Plus I recall reading somewhere that the Canadian economy got a decent boost from high spending on lighting equipment.

Pot is actually still technically illegal in the Netherlands, but sales of less than 5 grams (maximum you can buy in one coffeeshop) are ignored by the police. Think of it as a country-wide accepted custom not to arrest anyone with a small amount. Growing it is still very illegal, so all the coffeeshops still deal with a lot of the criminal world. I recall chatting to one of the security personnel at the La Canna coffeeshop and he was telling us how Dampkring is owned by some heavy duty fellas, they fly out to Afghanistan to examine their plantations, without caring about the war going on etc. Hardcore muthas.

BTW, whoever said something about brain damage, that's rubbish. Weed negatively affects the lungs, pretty heavy at that, quite a bit more than cigarettes, that's true. And they've done studies which hinted at the cognitive ability being affected as well, but that's a temporary effect, and cognition comes back to full after you stop smoking.

I know a staggering amount of people who are semi to chronic smokers, and they range from gronky bums to engineers to doctors to policement. It's really not a problem to get on in Sydney, and other cities are even easier. See, it's legal status will only deter people until they are about 15 or so when they learn that illegal is not necessarily immoral. So what the hell is the point?

On the other hand I can see where the legislators are coming from. They don't want a big scandal which may happen if they were to completely decriminalise bud, at the same time they don't want to enforce relevant laws too much and piss off a third of the population. And they let you grow two plants with no heavy penalties, so you have the option to do so, and if you go and contact drug dealers, then that's your own choice, because you had an alternative way to get on.

Conclusion from all this: grow your own, don't finance the bikies and don't carry large amounts, and you'll be allright. Still, much more can be achieved from decriminalising bud further (the obvious: tax revenue, higher employment, higher awareness and harm reduction).

[grooviechickie]

Well, how often does someone high on pot go on a killing rampage in comparison to someone wacked out on crack? Cigarettes and alcohol already have a worse effect on both the body and the brain than weed, but the same can't be said for any matter of hardcore drugs. We're a society defined by self destruction, and we're doing such a good job of it already, do we really need more ways to accomplish it?

Do you think it could be that the high amount of growers, makers and dealers totally fuck up the drugs in the first place, not caring about the consequences of their actions?

If all drugs were legalised, they could be monitored and produced safely, giving the same or similar effects without the nasty by-products and additives that alot of backyard labs use. (And Jesus-H-tapdancing Christ, some of the drugs produced by companies for medical conditions are worse for us, with lots of bloody awful side effects - and they're available on prescription!)

There is growing evidence to suggest that the psychological symptoms brought on by dope-smoking is because of the chemical fertilisers used to force the plants to grow indoors - this is unhealthy and leads to people smoking a whole lot of bad shit. If it were legal and it could be grown outdoors, then it could get lots of fresh air, rainwater and sunshine. It's much better for us.

Organic stuff is pretty decent.

Not that I know anything about that. I'm a good girl, me.

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, it's not like smoking and drinking has an enormous cost, and we have massive add campaigns to get people not to or anything.

[bollocks]

yes children, alcohol and cigarettes are bad for you.
problem is, they are already legal, and it's too difficult to remove them from the australian social scene.
our best hope here is education about the risks.

marijuana is not yet legal, and very dangerous.
it's worth preventing these things from becoming the common killers that you've all conceded alcohol and cigarettes are.

Even if it is proven that it causes permenant brain damage that's on the user.

You knob.

ask someone who's had to deal with a violent drug user (say a hospital worker) whether the damage inflicted is only upon the taker.

not to mention the economic problems caused by having a population on drugs (whether they make you violent or apathetic, you are not contributing).

Do you think it could be that the high amount of growers, makers and dealers totally fuck up the drugs in the first place, not caring about the consequences of their actions?

If all drugs were legalised, they could be monitored and produced safely, giving the same or similar effects without the nasty by-products and additives that alot of backyard labs use. (And Jesus-H-tapdancing Christ, some of the drugs produced by companies for medical conditions are worse for us, with lots of bloody awful side effects - and they're available on prescription!)

There is growing evidence to suggest that the psychological symptoms brought on by dope-smoking is because of the chemical fertilisers used to force the plants to grow indoors - this is unhealthy and leads to people smoking a whole lot of bad shit. If it were legal and it could be grown outdoors, then it could get lots of fresh air, rainwater and sunshine. It's much better for us.

what a crock of shit.

people take pot FOR the psychological side effects.
these didn't develop with fertiliser, people have been smoking pot for alot longer than these fertilisers have been around.

the effects on the lungs are enough, even if you were right (which would be unlikely in this case).

[lees]

marijuana for therapeutic reasons - i.e cancer.

[Thaluikhain]

marijuana for therapeutic reasons - i.e cancer.

Oh, right, yeah...fair enough then.

I mean, they are long term problems, but like the man says "Well, yes, but you don't have a long term".

[Chromefox]

yes children, alcohol and cigarettes are bad for you.
problem is, they are already legal, and it's too difficult to remove them from the australian social scene.
our best hope here is education about the risks.

I don't think education about drugs and alcohol goes far enough, and while there are probably some differences between our systems, I'm willing to bet that the methods on this topic are quite a bit similar.

Now, every year starting from the seventh grade, kids in our systems are reminded "Hey, drugs aren't good, alcohol is bad for your liver, don't drink and drive." I don't though, think that the worksheets with the facts are enough. It wasn't until my 10th grade that I realized how kids should be taught. I was in a seminar regarding drinking and driving, and a police officer was describing to us the conversation he had with a drunken girl who'd flown off a motorcycle and spliced herself up her torso from her vagina on a road sign, and poured all her guts out on to the gravel, which he had to clean up using a shovel once she'd been taken away.

See, I think, as controversial as a method this may be, that kids should have all the gritty details, and all the horrifying images as soon as they start learning. I personally think that scarring a child for life is an excellent way to teach them the horrors of alcohol, cigarettes, and beyond. Our current methods don't do shit. After six years of repetitive information, my grad class was still 85% drug abusing partiers.

I say give them all the information, and then they can decide for themselves. If they want to endanger their lives after all of that, then fine. Darwin can have them.

[grooviechickie]

what a crock of shit.

people take pot FOR the psychological side effects.
these didn't develop with fertiliser, people have been smoking pot for alot longer than these fertilisers have been around.

the effects on the lungs are enough, even if you were right (which would be unlikely in this case).

Ach, Bol, you are the poisonous thorn in my cute backside. I appreciate that you take your job so seriously! 

I was trying to say that alot of the more recent effects that people are discussing (mental health problems are agitated, like schizophrenia etc.) may just be because of the increased use and abuse of chemical fertilisers. The supply and demand issue is making backyard operators realise how much money they can make very quickly - they use huge amounts of chemicals on the plants to make them grow so they can harvest them and make their money, and people with issues who smoke serious amounts of pot will most certainly be smoking a serious amount of man-made chemicals right along with it. There is no way this can be healthy, especially when combined with all the other chemicals we ingest from different sources.

I was reading yesterday how there are traces of over 500 man-made chemicals in each and every person due to the spraying of food crops alone. Cancer, anyone?

As a gardener I refuse to use non-organic fertilisers on my plants, especially because I have fruit trees, herbs and vegetables. It's a common-sense approach to the problem of excessive chemicals in our system.

/end hippie rant 

[Chromefox]

It's really sad what we've done to ourselves, when you think about it. Cancer is an unhealthy cellular mutation. Cellular mutations in normal cases are rather rare, but we've managed to manufacture them for ourselves in a billion different ways. Hell, carrots can be carcinogenic in unnatural and absurd quantities.

[Phenolphthalein]

I would legalise genetic purification.

Allow me to explain my idea.

You see, evolution has come about through the process of natural selection where desirable traits that help a species survive is passed on through the generations and undesirable traits are generally wiped out from existence. This way, only the best genes are carried through and concentrated in the species. As a result, the species becomes stronger and stronger.

Humans, on the other hand, have developed a very advanced brain. This has allowed us to survive to this day. Now we have weapons to protect us, methods of transport to allow us to move faster than predators, machines to make and gather our food for us and medical technology to enable us to survive when we become sick and reproduce even when nature doesn't permit us to.

Because we hardly need to think to survive in the modern world, not only are humans losing their survival skills, we're also weakening our species. People who have genetic diseases, such as haemophilia, cystic fibrosis, phenylketonuria, and Down's syndrome are being allowed to reproduce and as a result pass on their defective (undesirable) genes on to the next generation and into the gene pool.

As human's think that they are so smart, they've also found a way around nature's way of preventing defective genes from being replicated. You're probably familiar with concepts of IVF, surrogacy and gamete donors. Technology is most certainly worth the celebration, but biologically, we're destroying ourselves.

Not to mention the amount of processed foods that are around today. So in addition to weakening the genes of the human race, we're also destroying ourselves by eating empty calories and polluting our bodies with carcinogens.

Of course, with our highly advanced brains, came the idea of human ethics. To take a human life and not do whatever we can to preserve it is a sin. Well, if you want to destroy billions upon billions of people and a slow, painful process over several hundred years by letting them flounder in their own muck, as opposed to clearing out the trash as it comes in... Well, go for it.

Of course, we could always just fix these problems with our fabulous technology, but right now, we're not that smart. So why do something the hard way when you could just do it the easy way and let nature take it's course.

And that is my reasoning behind my idea.