The Energon Pub

Blast Cannon wrote:

Delicon wrote:If it hadn't been allowed to be glamorized in music, tv shows and movies, do you honestly think people would use it as much as they do now?

I don't, because no one would know what it is.

What a ludicrous notion. The same could be said of literally any other product or 'vice' that has been endorsed on television or radio. Do you think that the Ipod would be as universally popular without advertisement?

I'm not sure what the argument is here. You called it a ludicrous notion, then went on to argue that the same is true of everything and restated Delicon's statement in terms of the Ipod. Judging by your post, it seems you completely agree with everything you quoted from Delicon.

Merc With A Mouth, but I added the numbers wrote:If 1) you're found innocent of a crime after being found guilty of it or 2) you've served time for something that's become become legalized the State has to make restitution to you.

1) But you're not innocent. You're still guilty of the crime whether or not it was changed after the fact. 2) And I'm not sure if there's an example of the U.S. making restitution to criminals after the crimes they were arrested under were abolished. Feel free to prove me wrong of #2, though, or if you can find an example of someone's record being stricken because a law was changed (#1).

Shadowman wrote:

Savage wrote:-- How much of a burden on society would the legalization be through the various support groups and medical programs that would likely increase?

Taxes on marijuana products would hopefully offset any burden on society.

And do you know the health benefits marijuana has, especially on chemotherapy patients?

Indeed.

Yeah, I don't see the government paying any kind of restitution to people convicted of using it while it is illegal. Like the others have said, they knowingly broke the law.

http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-928753-8.pdf

Page 30

Article 24

Page 31-32

Article 26

Page 32

Article 27


I don't feel like buying a 700 page law book as I have no use for it. But I'm sure you can download the whole thing if you want. Or we could just wait for someone with legal experience to stumble into this thread. Either or.

In regards to the whole restitution issue, I don't really see why it is an issue.

If you look at the entire populace of the prison system, what percentage do you think are there for USING drugs? Compare that to how many are there for DEALING drugs.

They could easily bypass all the bullcrap and word the law during the legalization process that anyone who sells weed needs to be a licensed dealer (afterall, we don't want certain people in the market selling laced weed). Since the dealers in prison did not have a license, they are still guilty of their crimes.

Of course, that's if restitution is even really an issue, which I think is not. As other's have said, bootleggers during prohibition continued to serve time after it was abolished. HOWEVER, I don't have the research that proves that's why they remained in prison. The majority of gangsters and bootleggers had additional charges brought up upon them, such as tax evasion (see Al Capone). So if restitution was an issue, the bootleggers and gangsters may have remained in prison based upon the other charges.

In which case, the majority of modern day dealers have additional charges, such as felony fleeing, resisting arrest, illegal firearms possession, etc. So, in my opinion, even with restitution in consideration, the majority of those in prison on drug-related crimes would still remain in prison until their sentence is over.

So basically what you're saying Fender is that I'm absolutely right unless they reword and change the law in regards to Marijuana should it be legalized?

Merc With A Mouth wrote:So basically what you're saying Fender is that I'm absolutely right unless they reword and change the law in regards to Marijuana should it be legalized?

It depends, I don't have the research (nor feel like looking for it) regarding what happened to those incarcerated during and after the Prohibition period.

We would need someone to look it up to determine who is correct on restitution.

Savage wrote:

bossbot wrote:but I consider pot to be especialy dangerous because its so accesible

Accessible? That was sarcastic, right?

Secondly, by that logic, cigarettes and alcohol are infinitely more dangerous than marijuana.

Also, about restitutions and whatnot, I highly doubt that would happen. Look at Prohibition. When Prohibition ended, nobody got restitutions. Many of the people in jail still had to finish serving their time on the grounds that their actions were illegal at the time they were committed..

sarcastic? not at all.

I live 40 miles from the dutch border, just across the border there are specialized 'coffeeshops' where you can just buy the stuff right over the counter, dozens of 'brands' in every possible price range.
only thing they have to ask for is an ID (age), and they dont even do that.
There are no border checkpoints ( none exist inside the EU anymore) only random checks by belgian cop patrols...
And here is the kicker : While buying over there and importing the stuff is illegal , a small amout on your person 'for personal use' is allowed,
So what the potheads do is get in a car with 5 people, drive across the border, buy a stash and divide it up, so when they come back into belgium and they are stopped by the police (with isent likely) they all have something on them 'for personal use' and are not obliged to say where they got it from .
So even when its clear for all parties involved that they just bought it over the border, technicaly they havent broken any laws in belgium.

and the 'real' drugsmugglers you ask? offcourse they dont get it in shops, they just get is straight from the plantations in holland and bring large quantities over the border...

how? simple, belgian cops arent allowed to give much chase to a vehicle, 'in the intrest of public safety', they have to back off real early.
And even if they where allowed they would more then likely have to do it in VW-vans.... good luck against some suped-up beemer

So the runners just slap fake plates on their car, and when confronted with a police checkpoint either turn around and take a different route, or just floor it.

Sorry I'm late, stopped for munchies...

So, here is an interesting account of the reason Hemp was made illegal.
Thoughts?

My opinion in a nutshell; If given the option, I'd rather spend my money on a a £20 bag of weed than suffer the far more detrimental physical and mental effects of a £20 bottle of hooch.

It should be legalised, regulated and taxed as its far less dangerous than alcohol that is not only legal but actively encouraged and advertised across the western world.

there's alot of good stuff in here, i particularily like the "it destroys lives" but i don't agree with that, anything taken to an obsession destroys lives, but from the perspective of the person it's not destoryed until they regret doing it. my dad's marriage broke down becuase my dad was obsessed with his hobby, at that point it had destroyed his life, but 13 years on he's still doing his motor racing, and is quite happy with his new girlfriend and his son.

but and this my second point, people change throughout they're lives, i'm not the same person i was 10 years ago, and that is other reason my pearants marriage fell apart, what my mum could put up with when they first started going out she ended not being able to put up with at the end. and that's the problem she wanted some like my dad, but not quite my dad, and my dad either had to give up his marriage or his hobby. rock and a hard place, but that's life, sometimes there is no right answer.


so with this in mind i approach the question; and i do think it should be legalized, change happens, and while your best mate may no longer be your best mate becuase he's a stoner, that's between the pair of you it your choice, just like any relationship. but later on you may grow apart anyway, you could take up golf and he could hate it and you end up spending more time with your golfing buddies. or he could be a stoner and you could carry on being your best mate. there's no guarantees, you have to roll with it.

it is pretty much certain though that the government will screw you out of money if it is legalised. and being the bitter twisted cynic i really feel they're bastards, but it's the perogative of rulers to tax their subjects.

As I was one of those to first discuss the loss of a friend, it seems appropriate to respond with my agreement. It is true that any addiction or, as Tammuz's example above, hobby can be all consuming and therefore destroy personal relationships. Undeniably when that occurs it no longer matters what the cause was. People changing over time being another cause; as someone who's seen his parents and other parents marriages break down it is unfortunate so many can't change together.

For weed though I still contend that it poses a greater risk to this break than other objects (excluding alcohol - alcohol seems to be the consensus greater evil) because of the culture around it and nature of its use. Perhaps if it was legal than all those cultural issues never would have surfaced - we're not in a situation to know that though. To repeat though, and reiterate the point and validate the other stories shared - any vice can be equally destructive.

On other points of agreement .... If legalized it would be taxed, ridiculously. It would create more cigarette-type companies, giant evil empires. And undoubtedly the blocking of hemp was from some greedy wankers who just couldn't make a better product - although this last point only contends in favor of making stuff with hemp, not smoking it's leaves. Figuring out how smoke it was a step of Hobbit magnitude stupidity.

Personally I find nothing wrong with it.
An occasional joint makes the night for us lot.

But then we are a bunch of crazy students

Wingspan wrote:
For weed though I still contend that it poses a greater risk to this break than other objects (excluding alcohol - alcohol seems to be the consensus greater evil) because of the culture around it and nature of its use. Perhaps if it was legal than all those cultural issues never would have surfaced - we're not in a situation to know that though. To repeat though, and reiterate the point and validate the other stories shared - any vice can be equally destructive.

i read this and i think, why are weed and alcohol so much easier to get into heavily?

and i think the answer is that it's quite an easy way of making yourself happy and forgetting your worries.

and is that a bad thing? would you have a problem if someone was taking an anti-depressant?

yes i understand that that's different; but is it really, that different when people are using both responsibly? or when people use both irresponibly? there's a fair number of people addicted to over the counter medicines like painkillers but we don't apply the same logic to that regarding addiction and easyness to get into.

i think what i'm trying to say is that in a fair number of cases irresponsible drug use is not the caused by them finding drugs, but a symptom of a person not entirely happy with there life before finding drugs.

i would agree alcohol and weed are a greater risk, mainly becuase they're more prevalent, accesable socially acceptable, and cheaper than other things that make people happy, if prostitution was legal and cost £15 for enough for a decent night you could just watch the number of people destroy they're lives through sex sky rocket, and also becuase they actually do make people feel happy and forget they're troubles for most of the populous, you and I wingspan my get a nice buzz of getting MP-starscream, but i doubt everyone would.

Legalization? I'm all for it. However decriminalization and approval for medical usage seems the more realistic route the U.S. Government would go for though, not that'd I'd complain at that.

The only thing ludicrous to my rationale is that tax dollars are being squandered into trying, convicting and imprisoning people who possess an amount for their own recreational use and treating them like they're as bad as the people who sell far more lethal narcotics.

Also, the stereotype that all pot smokers are lazy..well that really depends on the person. If it's one thing that is laughable it's the stigma of how marijuana users are percieved as lacking motivation or devoid of a work ethic. The companies that drug test and persecute employees just for smoking off the clock in the privacy of their own homes need to find bigger problems to worry about. I know quite a few who have bachelors or higher degrees, excellent jobs and smoke on the regular. They don't make those body cleanse drinks to fool UT tests for nothing, folks.

Just my two cents.

Flamemaster Galvatron wrote: They don't make those body cleanse drinks to fool UT tests for nothing, folks.

they make them to get mugs to buy them, most of them are easily spotted by GC-MS so whle hiding the fact you're a pot head, it doesn't hide that your cheating the drug test.

Tammuz wrote:

Flamemaster Galvatron wrote: They don't make those body cleanse drinks to fool UT tests for nothing, folks.

they make them to get mugs to buy them, most of them are easily spotted by GC-MS so whle hiding the fact you're a pot head, it doesn't hide that your cheating the drug test.

Heh, probably. I must say, I'm quite ignorant to the schematics of how they work; never being put in the position where I wouldn't pass a UT and would require using one myself. Sucks for the people that have been duped, however.

Forgive me if it's been touched upon, i only skimmed the previous pages, but wouldn't legalising it potentially open the flood gates for other more harmful drugs? Cocaine comes immediately to mind.

I will neither confirm nor deny my current or prior usage, it shouldn't matter.

Gutter Bunny wrote:Forgive me if it's been touched upon, i only skimmed the previous pages, but wouldn't legalising it potentially open the flood gates for other more harmful drugs? Cocaine comes immediately to mind.

I will neither confirm nor deny my current or prior usage, it shouldn't matter.

No, it wouldn't. Look at Amsterdam. They've decriminalized marijuana (so it can only be sold in approved stores and such that have a license to do so), but they consider hard drugs still illegal.

Merc With A Mouth wrote:

Gutter Bunny wrote:Forgive me if it's been touched upon, i only skimmed the previous pages, but wouldn't legalising it potentially open the flood gates for other more harmful drugs? Cocaine comes immediately to mind.

I will neither confirm nor deny my current or prior usage, it shouldn't matter.

No, it wouldn't. Look at Amsterdam. They've decriminalized marijuana (so it can only be sold in approved stores and such that have a license to do so), but they consider hard drugs still illegal.

And here we have a misunderstanding. To my knowledge, Amsterdam has not legalised marijuana. The police simply chose not to enforce laws against it or prostitution. The stance they take is that its illegal but no matter what they do to try to enforce against it, it's going to happen.

I was referring to the legalisation of it, not the toleration.

Gutter Bunny wrote:

Merc With A Mouth wrote:

Gutter Bunny wrote:Forgive me if it's been touched upon, i only skimmed the previous pages, but wouldn't legalising it potentially open the flood gates for other more harmful drugs? Cocaine comes immediately to mind.

I will neither confirm nor deny my current or prior usage, it shouldn't matter.

No, it wouldn't. Look at Amsterdam. They've decriminalized marijuana (so it can only be sold in approved stores and such that have a license to do so), but they consider hard drugs still illegal.

And here we have a misunderstanding. To my knowledge, Amsterdam has not legalised marijuana. The police simply chose not to enforce laws against it or prostitution. The stance they take is that its illegal but no matter what they do to try to enforce against it, it's going to happen.

I was referring to the legalisation of it, not the toleration.

Ah. That's my mistake then. Well in that case I'd say that the US would be like Amsterdamn in that case. As for the hard drugs I'd imagine they wouldn't be decriminalised, as you can't really argue that they're harmless. Because they're not.

Tammuz wrote:

Wingspan wrote:
For weed though I still contend that it poses a greater risk to this break than other objects (excluding alcohol - alcohol seems to be the consensus greater evil) because of the culture around it and nature of its use. Perhaps if it was legal than all those cultural issues never would have surfaced - we're not in a situation to know that though. To repeat though, and reiterate the point and validate the other stories shared - any vice can be equally destructive.

i read this and i think, why are weed and alcohol so much easier to get into heavily?

and i think the answer is that it's quite an easy way of making yourself happy and forgetting your worries.

and is that a bad thing? would you have a problem if someone was taking an anti-depressant?

See to me there's a difference between having a drink with some friends and acting silly, vs drinking away problems. I don't care if it is drugs or alcohol, but numbing real problems is going to create the slippery slope that can lead to alcoholism and substance dependency.

And I know you were specific about anti-depressants, cause they are really a band-aid vs drugs that are used to permanently alter chemical imbalances. But I believe that a doctor prescribed dosage of anti-depressants are effective at doing what they are supposed to do...which I also kind of think if a doctor prescribed a dosage of weed in the same manner that it might work as well.

Gutter Bunny wrote:Forgive me if it's been touched upon, i only skimmed the previous pages, but wouldn't legalising it potentially open the flood gates for other more harmful drugs? Cocaine comes immediately to mind.

I will neither confirm nor deny my current or prior usage, it shouldn't matter.

Eh, I find it unlikely.

Seeing as how at one point, more harmful drugs were legal (and are still kind of being used in derivatives..think oxycotin, morphine, novacaine) are now ruled as illegal narcotics due to their physically and mentally addictive qualities, I'd pretty much bet they'd stay illegal.

Cannabis is just a versatile plant with many uses that others really aren't. Hemp fibers are extremely durable and can be used for not only clothing but also paper, ending a need to cut down trees. Marijuana can be used for an alternative treatment to depression or used recreationally. Cannabis seeds produce more ethanol than corn seeds when it comes to the production of motor fuel, and are also full of protein. The list kind of goes on but you get the point. Also, the government would pretty much make a killing tax-wise which, quite possibly, could help to get the economy out of the toilet.

GetterDragun wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Wingspan wrote:
For weed though I still contend that it poses a greater risk to this break than other objects (excluding alcohol - alcohol seems to be the consensus greater evil) because of the culture around it and nature of its use. Perhaps if it was legal than all those cultural issues never would have surfaced - we're not in a situation to know that though. To repeat though, and reiterate the point and validate the other stories shared - any vice can be equally destructive.

i read this and i think, why are weed and alcohol so much easier to get into heavily?

and i think the answer is that it's quite an easy way of making yourself happy and forgetting your worries.

and is that a bad thing? would you have a problem if someone was taking an anti-depressant?

See to me there's a difference between having a drink with some friends and acting silly, vs drinking away problems. I don't care if it is drugs or alcohol, but numbing real problems is going to create the slippery slope that can lead to alcoholism and substance dependency.

And I know you were specific about anti-depressants, cause they are really a band-aid vs drugs that are used to permanently alter chemical imbalances. But I believe that a doctor prescribed dosage of anti-depressants are effective at doing what they are supposed to do...which I also kind of think if a doctor prescribed a dosage of weed in the same manner that it might work as well.

my point is though that alot of these drunkards and burnt out pot heads who are dependant need to get put on anti-depressants or some how or other sort they're lives out.

it's not that alcohol or weed screwed them up(though it's just a likely to exacerbate things as not), they were screwed up before and turned to the substances for consolation, which it readily gives and thus becomes a sole way of being happy so they let the rest of their lives slide until the substance is there life, and at that point everyone goes "ooh alcohol/weed is bad"
when it's not, it's just a coping a mechanism, a side effect of something that's actually much worse.

but yeah i can't see a reason it should be illegal for adults.