Cannabis Legalisation Ireland

bertiebomber

no grow it among the tomatoe plants and it blends in into your garden

SheikhSteve

Strumms wrote: »

I can see the value of it, if it’s medicinal, and doctors can prescribe it and you can buy it from a pharmacy.


For simply for recreation, no. We have enough trouble in the country with a legal recreational drug (alcohol), without adding cannabis into the mix. The fallout from doing that would simply cost the state too much revenue.

That something is illegal, or not, doesn't indicate whether it is good, or not good for you. Alcohol is manufactured and causes no end of health problems and violent behaviour. Cannabis doesn't. Noone has ever died from Cannabis, but plenty have died from Alcohol.

JupiterKid

It’s just another reality of life that the current government wouldn’t have the balls to legislate for.

Buzzing as I type this... :cool::pac:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JupiterKid wrote: »

It’s just another reality of life that the current government wouldn’t have the balls to legislate for.

Buzzing as I type this... :cool::pac:

The epitome of "Nanny State" is Irish drug laws.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

JupiterKid wrote: »

It’s just another reality of life that the current government wouldn’t have the balls to legislate for.

Buzzing as I type this... :cool::pac:

Oh, look at me... I'm so cool and trendy and progressive, because I'm pro cannabis legalization!

(So cool - but yet obviously needing mind altering drugs as a crutch to get through life!) :pac:

Anyone who thinks they are forward thinking or more open minded, because they are pro cannabis legalization... really are about as deluded as it's possible to be. And just another mindless sheep following the crowd.

Also, anyone who thinks cannabis is completely harmless and has no negative health effects or negative effects on society, is also quite clueless and probably hasn't been smoking the stuff for long enough.

(I smoked for years through school and most of college btw - so I know very well what I'm talking about - cannabis has plenty of negative effects, just like any other mind altering addictive substance)

Governments have much more important things to be legislating for, rather than focusing their time on something as irrelevant as whatever drug of choice happens to be in vogue at the time for the "oh so trendy and woke" spaced out hipster generation, who think they are some kind of new revolutionary thinking breed of people.... when in fact most you are just a bad ripoff of characters you've watched on American TV shows!

Potential-Monke

Who pissed in your porridge?

irishblessing

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Oh, look at me... I'm so cool and trendy and progressive, because I'm pro cannabis legalization!

(So cool - but yet obviously needing mind altering drugs as a crutch to get through life!) :pac:

Anyone who thinks they are forward thinking or more open minded, because they are pro cannabis legalization... really are about as deluded as it's possible to be. And just another mindless sheep following the crowd.

Also, anyone who thinks cannabis is completely harmless and has no negative health effects or negative effects on society, is also quite clueless and probably hasn't been smoking the stuff for long enough.

(I smoked for years through school and most of college btw - so I know very well what I'm talking about - cannabis has plenty of negative effects, just like any other mind altering addictive substance)

Governments have much more important things to be legislating for, rather than focusing their time on something as irrelevant as whatever drug of choice happens to be in vogue at the time for the "oh so trendy and woke" spaced out hipster generation, who think they are some kind of new revolutionary thinking breed of people.... when in fact most you are just a bad ripoff of characters you've watched on American TV shows!

Lol. Never had a drink in your life then, eh? It obviously touched a nerve because you just admitted how you used it for a crutch to get through life so now you'll blame the plant for those years and those who use it responsibly and recreationally who have more self control than you.

By the way, marijuana has been used for hundreds of years. Go again.

Wanderer78

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote:

Oh, look at me... I'm so cool and trendy and progressive, because I'm pro cannabis legalization!

I'd rather see it legalised because it just makes sense, what a waste of tax payers money, chasing this one

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

(I smoked for years through school and most of college btw - so I know very well what I'm talking about - cannabis has plenty of negative effects, just like any other mind altering addictive substance)

No, you don't. You only know how it affected YOU.

The arguement that drugs affect every person the same way kind of rules out the idea of you knowing "very well what you are talking about".

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Who pissed in your porridge?

Oh, just every new generation who seem to think they're so much more enlightened than the last... if only the rest of society and the gubberment could see their way of thinking, everything would be so much better. (said every generation since the dawn of time) :pac:

There's nothing enlightened about trying to legalize cannabis. Just like there is nothing special about the substance itself that is going to transform your life or way of thinking... being a pothead doesn't give you special powers of perception or illuminated thoughts!

Every pothead in history seems to think their view of the world is unique and groundbreaking... if only the rest of society could smoke some pot and get on board with their plan for the world!

Even the original potheads back in the 60's... most of their groundbreaking ideas on life, ended up where they belong... in the trash bin of history!

And in all likelihood, those guys weren't even the true originals... the ancient inca tribes of south america liked to get high, but at least those guys seemed to have enough wisdom to recognise that's all they were doing!

irishblessing

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, you don't. You only know how it affected YOU.

The arguement that drugs affect every person the same way kind of rules out the idea of you knowing "very well what you are talking about".

Great point. Also that poster mentioned how it was smoked all throughout school. Research is showing that marijuana effects on the adolescent brain is harmful and may have long lasting effects. You obviously don't want to have a smoking problem in your younger years. That is a different experience and topic altogether.

Wanderer78

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote:

Oh, just every new generation who seem to think they're so much more enlightened than the last... if only the rest of society and the gubberment could see their way of thinking, everything would be so much better. (said every generation since the dawn of time)

I've never done any illegal drug, thank God, but I'd nearly go for full legalisation of everything, at this stage, definitely weed anyway

elefant

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

And in all likelihood, those guys weren't even the true originals... the ancient inca tribes of south america liked to get high, but at least those guys seemed to have enough wisdom to recognise that's all they were doing!

I'm curious- is this documented somewhere?

Riesen_Meal

Imagine they legalised weed now, would actually keep people indoors social distancing because they are too blazed to move and it would get the economy back on track post covid...

The puritans (and publican's) wouldn't have a bar of it....

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I've never done any illegal drug, thank God, but I'd nearly go for full legalisation of everything, at this stage, definitely weed anyway

Yeah maaaan... legalize it all maaaannn... groovy... peace and free love dude! :rolleyes:

You seem so cool and open minded... how can I be more like YOU?

Maybe I should buy some flares too, and we can braid each others hair and sing kumbaya together!

I've no problem if anyone wants to be a pothead... knock yourself out. It's the idea that these notions are somehow revolutionary or that they're going to bring society forward into a new enlightened future.

Everyone chill out, smoke some pot and all society's issues will melt away in a beautiful haze... that's the way I thought too, when I was a smoker.

That's the way potheads think... why can't everyone else just chill out and enjoy the buzz. Your typical pothead thinks if only we could get more people to smoke, everyone would see the world in a new revolutionary way... we'd transcend all these silly problems we have and become a new breed of people!

Cannabis can be fun, but if you spend enough time on it your brain gradually turns to mush... And don't give me that BS about using it properly - everyone thinks they use it the "right" way. And they're all wrong!

You could transport all of these people back into the 60's, and their braindead ideas for society would be just as revolutionary and groundbreaking as those lads...

I'm sure 50 years from now, we'll have the same people thinking the same copy and paste thoughts too. Evolution clearly is a very slow process... (considerably slower for some people!) :pac:

JohnnyFlash

Why are habitual cannabis smokers always such losers though? Was it the drug that made them lazy, pasty-faced, forgetful, and lacking in ambition, or are those type of people naturally drawn to smoking cannabis?

Or course Paddy Pothead will always point to the odd exception like Steve Jobs who occasionally smoked. It wasn’t weed that made Jobs successful - it was being an uncaring and money motivated sociopath with an eye for design that did that.

irishblessing

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Why are habitual cannabis smokers always such losers though? Was it the drug that made them lazy, pasty-faced, forgetful, and lacking in ambition, or are those type of people naturally drawn to smoking cannabis?

Or course Paddy Pothead will always point to the odd exception like Steve Jobs who occasionally smoked. It wasn’t weed that made Jobs successful - it was being an uncaring and money motivated sociopath with an eye for design that did that.

Maybe you need new aquaintances, or is that just a stereotype you've passed on as fact?

I know lots of normal, successful, family-oriented people who indulge in a bit of smoke. They aren't odd exceptions. Guaranteed you know people who fit my description are in the closet about it because of the stigma you just posted.

JohnnyFlash

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Why are habitual cannabis smokers always such losers though? Was it the drug that made them lazy, pasty-faced, forgetful, and lacking in ambition, or are those type of people naturally drawn to smoking cannabis?

Does it have to be one or the other? It can be both or neither depending on the people involved. You could replace alcohol or gambling and ask the same question. Was it the beer that made the kind of person - who needs to down 10 Guinness and come on an internet forum to tell people about it - the wasters they are - or were they always wasters and the alcohol gave them an outlet for it?

A second issue though is in the sweeping statement about "habitual" users.

Firstly "habitual" is rather vague. It does not say what the habit is or in what quantities. A habit is just a pattern really. If I were to drink a single glass of wine on the first Friday of every month that is "habitual" use.

Secondly you have here what is called a "self selection" set. That is you are likely only to notice the "habitual" users who fit your profile. It is quite likely the majority of "habitual" users not only do not meet your profile - but are actually so far away from your profile that you do not even register their existence as _any_ kind of user at all.

Generally when someone's use of a substance or hobby or other investment of their time is not problematic you do not even know they are doing it at all. So they do not get included in your profiling of the average user. Habitual or occasional.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Why are habitual cannabis smokers always such losers though? Was it the drug that made them lazy, pasty-faced, forgetful, and lacking in ambition, or are those type of people naturally drawn to smoking cannabis?

Or course Paddy Pothead will always point to the odd exception like Steve Jobs who occasionally smoked. It wasn’t weed that made Jobs successful - it was being an uncaring and money motivated sociopath with an eye for design that did that.

Why are people like you always asking loaded questions and making generalisations?

irishblessing

Fieldog wrote: »

Imagine they legalised weed now, would actually keep people indoors social distancing because they are too blazed to move and it would get the economy back on track post covid...

The puritans (and publican's) wouldn't have a bar of it....

I remember they said that about the pubs in the US states too who legalised it. Turns out people who like to smoke still smoke. People who like and want to go out for drinks still do. The people who smoked were safer, people who needed proper safe lab tested strains and tinctures for their ailments could finally get them, and the states reaped a shít ton of revenue for their school systems. People (more often non-whites) didn't go to jail on taxpayer money and have criminal records for their choice. Win-win.

JohnnyFlash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Does it have to be one or the other? It can be both or neither depending on the people involved. You could replace alcohol or gambling and ask the same question. Was it the beer that made the kind of person - who needs to down 10 Guinness and come on an internet forum to tell people about it - the wasters they are - or were they always wasters and the alcohol gave them an outlet for it?

A second issue though is in the sweeping statement about "habitual" users.

Firstly "habitual" is rather vague. It does not say what the habit is or in what quantities. A habit is just a pattern really. If I were to drink a single glass of wine on the first Friday of every month that is "habitual" use.

Secondly you have here what is called a "self selection" set. That is you are likely only to notice the "habitual" users who fit your profile. It is quite likely the majority of "habitual" users not only do not meet your profile - but are actually so far away from your profile that you do not even register their existence as _any_ kind of user at all.

Generally when someone's use of a substance or hobby or other investment of their time is not problematic you do not even know they are doing it at all. So they do not get included in your profiling of the average user. Habitual or occasional.

What’s your point, dude? This is all very rambling and quite incoherent.

JohnnyFlash

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

What’s your point, dude? This is all very rambling and quite incoherent.

That would appear to be more a description of your comprehension levels than my content however. Your inability to understand a text does not automatically mean the text itself is problematic. Though I suspect your inability to rebut it is a motivation for pretending not to understand it, in truth.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

So cool - but yet obviously needing mind altering drugs as a crutch to get through life!

I have met quite a number of people who seem entirely unable to function in the morning - or the whole day in fact - unless they get their hands on their particular brand of mind altering substance. In nearly all cases this substance is coffee.

But even without drugs most people I have seen tend to have _some_ "crutch" they use to get through life. Sometimes it is some routine or structure. Sometimes it is religion. Sometimes it is a substance. Some times it is the unending support of others. Sometimes it is government hand outs.

So deriding something with the word "crutch" is pretty vacuous and lame and I wonder if you are therefore flinging words like "Mindless" in the exact wrong direction when it comes to describing the investment of thought into the issue itself. The word "crutch" seems to be nothing but a diminutive to describe other peoples life paths while ignoring ones own.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Also, anyone who thinks cannabis is completely harmless and has no negative health effects or negative effects on society, is also quite clueless and probably hasn't been smoking the stuff for long enough.

I have heard Peter Hitchens trot out - and completely misrepresent - the alleged "harms" too often to take your saying it at face value to be honest. Citations needed. The first step in ascertaining the harms - if any - would be to be sure what substance and in what form you are actually talking about. Because there is worlds of difference between blank market "skunk" and the stuff you would get in legitimate licensed shops. And people like Hitchens - for one - cite only the former and then conflate it with the whole.

So tell us all about the harms if you can. Preferably at a level more informative than "Well this is what happened to me and my brain was mush".

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

I smoked for years through school and most of college btw - so I know very well what I'm talking about - cannabis has plenty of negative effects, just like any other mind altering addictive substance

Well no - personal experience with a drug gives you zero actual usable insight into it I am afraid. Firstly you only know the negatives effects on _you_. No one else. Further you do not / can not even be 100% sure the negative effects were on the drug unless we fully document and normalise for every other thing going on in your life at the time. There could have been something negative going on with _you_ at the time and your drug taking was temporally coincidental with it.

This is why we have drug trials and epidemiology techniques. Precisely _because_ single user testimony is less than worthless.

However even if the drug had a profoundly negative effect on _you_ that still tells us nothing. There is no drug I am aware of that does not have negative effects on someone. Hell some people can not eat peanuts without dying and allergies to water - yes water - is a thing. Every substance out there has negative effects. It is through trials and reason - not emotion and knee jerk reaction - that we ascertain if this is the norm or the exception - and whether any negatives are balanced by positives and benefits.

It is definitely a known that some drugs - including this one - exacerbate already existing underlying physical and mental conditions. And without going back in time it is difficult to ascertain which of these might have been in play in your case. Though I am sure some people would extrapolate from your posting history and style here. It would seem it was the wrong drug for you to take and you might have been better off never having taken it. But that justified animosity towards what the drug did to you should not be projected onto a younger generation as a "crutch" to allow you to shout condescending derision at them from your porch while waving your walking stick over your head.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Governments have much more important things to be legislating for, rather than focusing their time

This is and always has been a non argument. Usually from people who have no actual argument. Legislating issues is not mutually exclusive. Governments should be investing their time in _all_ the issues relevant to and important to the people they govern. Legislating for one group of issues is not and should never be an excuse not to work on the others.

Further the argument is self defeating. Making a drug illegal or legal does not lead to equal investment of time _after_ the fact. Because they then have to legislate for the actual laws the punishments and then ensure they are enforced. The police have to invest time and resources in a (losing it seems) battle against the drug. Then the courts and tax payer money have to be invested in prosecuting those cases. Then the prison system has to deal with the fall out.

So a concern for resources is precisely the _opposite_ argument to your case. It is an argument for questioning the utility of legislating for a victimless crime and a relatively harmless drug.

The entire diatribe you just posted in fact comes across less as being actually interested in the topic at hand and more as a "young people today" rant. And while you lambaste the younger generation as always having such and such a type of person - one could easily also point out the ubiquity of little oul ones in every older generation waving their cane at the yung-uns and shouting their woes. What you are probably experiencing is something called "Juvenoia" or "An exaggerated fear of social change in young people". And it seems every generation we know of has had it. So you're nothing new yourself.

So with the arguments you (do not) post here I can not see you winning either any drug debates or any inter-generational we are better than you debates either.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

being a pothead doesn't give you special powers of perception or illuminated thoughts!

You are relying on extremes to make your point it seems - which just belies your desperation. The word "pothead" to me is just like the word "alcoholic". It is a label for the relative minority of people who abuse the drug in question with addiction and over use. And sure - being a "pothead" or "alcoholic" tends not to be useful. Though there are some rare exceptions to this too.

Occasional and mature and controlled use of drugs can in fact give you insights you might not otherwise have had. Or it might not. It depends on numerous factors. And that is how most people do use such substances. But the anti-drughead tends to only highlight the extremes.

But the question for me is - who ever actually suggested it has to do this? Going down for a pint in the pub does not often give people "special powers of perception or illuminated thoughts" either. Though sometimes it does. But generally that is not the goal of drinking one either. Some people do it for the taste. Some to relax. Some to socialise. Some just because they damn well want to.

What of it? You are erecting a straw man of lofty goals that are not even required by us in the first place. If we were to control what people in our society have access to by these ridiculous agendas you portray - what would we have left? Most television and cinema would probably have to go for a start.

With any given substance there will be people who can find any number of benefits from it. Smoking this drug is a pain remedy for many people for example and replaces a reliance on more damaging and addictive pain medication. Who are you/we to decide who's goals for it's use are lofty enough for our tastes? Do you go into pubs and interview people as to why they have their pint in their hand - and then shout impunities at those who's reasoning does not reach your own high pedestal standards?

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

You seem so cool and open minded... how can I be more like YOU?

And yet despite the snide condescension of a straw man only you have created based on nothing the other user actually said - you seem to be the only one portraying themselves as more right or more with it or more enlightened or informed than anyone else on the matter. Right up to and including the suggestive remark that you are some how more "evolved" than the rest.

JohnnyFlash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That would appear to be more a description of your comprehension levels than my content however. Your inability to understand a text does not automatically mean the text itself is problematic. Though I suspect your inability to rebut it is a motivation for pretending not to understand it, in truth.

No, it’s not my inability to understand a text. I’m a smart cookie. It’s struggling to understand the point you are trying to make about cannabis. Your post is a mixture of vagaries, rambling and unrelated themes, pop psychology, and getting bogged down in the semantics of words. All it’s missing is tedious multi quoting.

I’m sure there’s an odd person who is a chronic cannabis smoker and successful. Rather like the functioning alcoholic. They are still drug addicts through. The idea that weed is some harmless drug is the greatest myth ever spun. Most potheads are losers in life. Were they destined to be losers before they became stoners, or did cannabis accelerate the process of them becoming losers?

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Deleted User wrote: »

Generally when someone's use of a substance or hobby or other investment of their time is not problematic you do not even know they are doing it at all. So they do not get included in your profiling of the average user. Habitual or occasional.

This is the typical misguided view that so many people seem to have around drug use in society (all drugs).

That if the majority of people using a particular substance, are managing to keep their sh!t together and their life hasn't unravelled... this proves that drug use is basically harmless for most of society.

That it's only harmful for a small sub-section... therefore why stop the majority from enjoying their hobby responsibily, right?

WRONG!



>>(And this is not even broaching the subject of how you even begin quantify who is in control of their drug use btw... is it purely left up to personal interpretation? Because that's a pretty unreliable method - judging from current and past experiences with drugs like alcohol etc.)<<



Society creates the overarching culture. People who abuse drugs don't exist in a vacuum... they are a subculture of individuals created by the wider culture of drug use.

Countries with a greater culture of alcohol consumption, as just one example, are going to have far more problem alcoholics than countries who don't.

There is this sort of callous attitude of "I'm alright boss, so everything is alright"...

If you create a drug culture, you will be directly creating problem users. It's not even an indirect consequence... your moderate use - and society's acceptance of it - is actually the oxygen required to make the fire grow and sustain it indefinitely.

So many people like to absolve themselves from wider accountability. Which is a big part of the motivation for legalization - nobody wants to see their own drug use in the wider context that it belongs! Every man is an Island when it comes to habitual drug use... which is one of the most deluded and damaging attitudes society at large can take!

It's just yet another example of the selfish mentality of many folks in society... only seeing the world through their own very narrow prism.

JohnnyFlash

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It’s struggling to understand the point you are trying to make about cannabis.

Yes. You are. Given I was not even making a point about cannabis at all. So on one hand you claim it is not your lack of understanding that is the issue here - but then in the next breath demonstrate it absolutely is. Well done dude. Well. Done.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I’m sure there’s an odd person who is a chronic cannabis smoker and successful.

Here is a nice multi quote since you asked. It is interesting you switched from the word "habitual" to "chronic" here. It seems you understood the points I was making - that you pretended not to understand - better than you are letting on.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The idea that weed is some harmless drug is the greatest myth ever spun. Most potheads are losers in life.

So are most alcoholics. The issue is once again you are reliant on the extreme in order to create a point where no actual point exists. So no wonder you have no recourse but to pretend not to understand posts when they point this fallacy out to you.

Firstly chronic use of just about any drug is going to be harmful. Though rare exceptions will exist as you point out. Much art and literature for example owes it's existence to chronic users. Alas. This is not a good thing. But it is a thing.

Secondly no drug is harmless. Not caffeine not alcohol and not cannabis. Anyone claiming it to be _entirely_ harmless is talking out their hole. The claims people are generally making outside your strawman however is not that it is harmless but _relatively_ harmless. That is - given the plethora of drugs people tend to take recreationally or medically - including alcohol - it is safe to describe some drugs as "harmless" in relation to them.

Many of the supposed harms of this particular drug are manufactured. Usually by pointing to the effects of harmful black market variants. The reality is most people most of the time use this drug without ill effect. A fact you can conveniently ignore by noticing / pointing out solely the small group of people who are the exception and acting like they are the whole.

comerla

Jacinda Ardern smoked it. Leo smoked it. Barack smoked it.

Everybody I know smoked it at college. Many of them still do on occasion and most of these are pillars of the community in their forties at this stage. I have colleagues in Boston who grow their own (legally) in their fifties who are successful, and are great people.

The problem is that this is so underground here that no one 'respectable' will discuss it openly.

The guards will send the armed response unit if they hear of a small grow. This is mad.

This law needs to change. It's embarrassing at this stage, not to mention devastating for those unlucky enough to be caught. In the meantime everyone else keeps the head down.

Lots of similarities with the laws that used to exist against homosexuality.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

That if the majority of people using a particular substance, are managing to keep their sh!t together and their life hasn't unravelled... this proves that drug use is basically harmless for most of society.

So the majority of people using it without any detriment is _not_ evidence that the majority can use it without detriment? I can not wait for you to explain that one to me

Further though - with legal and regulated product we can better control as a society the effect such drugs have on the individual. Especially - but not only - in relation to illegal black market product which is often cut in such a way as to promote or even ensure addiction.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Society creates the overarching culture. People who abuse drugs don't exist in a vacuum... they are a subculture of individuals created by the wider culture of drug use.

Agreed and I think our culture around drug use could use work. Especially alcohol for example. But I do not see any benefit to that agenda that is garnered by making any one particular drug illegal without due cause or reason. There are any number of ways to modify culture around any one drug - and all drugs as a whole - and flinging laws at them is only one single option. And a poor one quite often in one hand - and entirely unsuccessful in the other hand.

So actually if I steel man your position the best I can - I would say you are fighting entirely the wrong battle in entirely the correct war.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

If you create a drug culture, you will be directly creating problem users.

I would say we already have a drug culture. And we already have problem users. Making a drug illegal does not remove a drug culture. It just forms a different drug culture. So this is not a case of "I want no drug culture - you want a drug culture" at all.

My agenda would not be to "create" a drug culture as you suggest but to recognise and modify the existing one with a better one - ideally one that deals with not only the problem users it may or may not create - but also the problem users the previous one created too - and with tools legal and social to prevent the issues we have learned from experience.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

comerla wrote: »

Jacinda Ardern smoked it. Leo smoked it. Barack smoked it.

Everybody I know smoked it at college. Many of them still do on occasion and most of these are pillars of the community in their forties at this stage. I have colleagues in Boston who grow their own (legally) in their fifties who are successful, and are great people.

The problem is that this is so underground here that no one 'respectable' will discuss it openly.

The guards will send the armed response unit if they hear of a small grow. This is mad.

This law needs to change. It's embarrassing at this stage, not to mention devastating for those unlucky enough to be caught. In the meantime everyone else keeps the head down.

Lots of similarities with the laws that used to exist against homosexuality.

Absolutely.

And the only arguments people can produce in favour of prohibition are the nonsensical "it's trendy" and the hypocritically lazy generalisation "everyone who smokes it is a loser".

bertiebomber

think of the vat returns on its legalisation. better than alcohol or diesel we would be saved financially and calmed down at the same time win win.
less murders and violent crime as we would all be chilled out and too lazy to lift a machete,
less sexual crime as mr winky would be comatose - great for women
there are so many wins and as we are all going to be euthanized anyway in the near future so might as welll be spaced out