Mind blowing laws — 15 Comments

  1. The problem with all these people in positions of power who pontificate on drugs laws is that none of them have got a fucking clue about that which they speak. Smokes a couple of spliffs in Amsterdam and that makes him an expert? At least he's tried it, though, which is more than most of the idiots who make the laws and prosecute the 'war on drugs' have. And you're right, GD, 'decriminalising' is a cop-out. It's neither nowt nor summat. Drugs should never have been the subject of prohibition, because it is from that puritanical seed that all the problems and the incalculable costs to humanity have germinated.

    The sooner they legalise the lot of them, the sooner the world will be able to return to some sort of sanity. I'm not holding my breath on that one though. The puritans in our midst have a lot to answer for. They are the architects of more human misery than all the tyrants of the world put together.

    It's somewhat paradoxical that while the 'free' world is busy decriminalising cannabis, they're concomitantly busy trying to criminalise tobacco. We really have wandered through the looking glass.

    "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

    • By my standards, the law should only exist to protect the individual.  There is the usual fuss about whether cannabis is harmful or not, but if I chose to run any risks then that is my business and no one else's.  Add to that the significant health benefits for some then it's a no brainer [to use a horrible expression].  Of course if cannabis were freely available then Big Pharma would stand to loose one hell of a lot!

    • Guess we will just have to make our cigarettes look like joints and we will be fine! 

      • Funnily enough, there is the odd occasion that my cigarette looks very much like a joint. Unfortunately, here in Greece they (the authorities) are still wedded to the notion that dope is the spawn of the devil, so I would be far from fine. However, in their favour, they are very relaxed about tobacco. This is one of the few places in the western world that if you make your joint look like a cigarette, then you WILL be fine! 🙂

  2. So, would one be able to smoke a neat spliff in a pub? It isn't a tobacco product.

      • I believe they have, although disappointingly they are a different item from the electrofag, so you can't mix'n'match. I wonder, however, if the e-spliffs are as odourless as e-cigs, as dope has a particularly pungent scent. Could be handy in those places which still see dope in the light of 'Reefer Madness'.

        "It's all right officer, it's just an e-cigarette… (***sparkle***)"

  3. We had David Nutt over here last year to give a packed out public talk on the benefits of legalising the old weed, which caused a flurry of government interest, especially when Nutt pointed out that the first government to relax laws on growing the stuff sufficiently to allow growing even limited amounts for research or personal consumption would have the world's drug companies rushing to its door wanting to set up labs. Appears there's a huge untapped market to evaluate the medicinal effects of cannabinoids (feedback given anonymously by smokers who are technically criminals doesn't count for scientific purposes as they can't be questioned on their answers).

    Obviously, one year later, the same public health officials who said ' weed is less dangerous than a cup of tea, Nutt's idea is a goer and let's at least legalise small amounts/personal use' told government & the press that criminalising fag smoking in cars was absolutely necessary and the evidence irrefutable.

    Did they actually read the research in either case (at least in the critical way every school kid is told proper science demands)?

    I know, silly question!

    • The only research they will ever entertain is that which confirms their own pre-conceived notions.

      It's a marvelous way to advance science?

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting