OT, Channel 4 Documentary on Marajuana

BBC, C4, Sky or UK Gold, same principle you picky bellend!

 

If the powers that be back down and make certain substances legal they will be seen as weak by some so there is no way they would ever do that.

The alternative is ban alcohol (since is proven to be worse) but there is no way they would do that, there would be the mother of all backlashes

So they take the easy route; do nothing!

 

No it ****ing isn't. Ch 4 don't get funded by our television licenses. Next.................................

 

I haven't got an entrenched position on this. I picked up on one point about California as that was the example being used to justify [?] how legalising cannabis here might turn out. Had afc used Portugal or somewhere else I wouldn't have bothered arguing the point because I wouldn't have known without looking it up but being a lecturer in American studies I got caught up

 

No, you're wrong. I've said over 50% of states have decriminalisation AT THE VERY LEAST. And have continually stated I'm including recreational and medicinal legalisation as well as decriminalisation.

Using your own source website we have 18 states were it is decriminalised, 36 states with legalised medical marijuana (24 of which are for actual marijuana instead of CBD specific laws) and an additional five states with recreational legalisation.

The Wikipedia page (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction) gives a decent map showing the states and there various positions. Norml.org which you posted is the main source given for the information provided. Though some additional laws may have been passed since.

 

No they don't. Decriminalisation is different to legalisation and as it was me who first said that more states still criminalised than didn't - I'm sticking to that because that's a fact. You can throw in what you like but only 18 states decriminalise which is significantly less than 50%.

In states were it's legal for medicinal purposes you can still be arrested and charged for possession meaning that it's still not decriminalised and I'm not arguing that point any further.

 

I actually started this thread with a bit of fun in mind

 

I'm having fun

 

Actually I had raised the point first in post #125 and stated that I included both types of legalisation and decriminalisation. You then responded in regards to criminalisation and granted my further responses quoted you on this comment. So I can see how with the high levels of pedantry going on we could be trying to argue two very slightly different sentences.

My point still stands, over 50% of states in the US (57%) have either legalised (recreational or medicinal) or decriminalised cannabis.

 

Should have stuck to the nefarious goings on at your local caravanserai.

 

The nefarious goings on at my local caravanserai clearly involve exactly what this thread is about

 

I see nobody has mentioned legal highs as yet. These are readily available on the high street or online and are becoming increasingly popular.

I've carried out my own 'research' on these and I have to say they are not to be overlooked when it comes to strength, in fact in some cases they pack quite a punch and I can see why they are so popular.

I'd still prefer the real mcoy though so I'd like them legalised please admins.

 

Funny subject Ganja. Should be legalised and regulated purely from the size of the industry. But at the same time restrictions need to be put in place so that it is viewed as alcohol equivalent rather than cigarette equivalent. Netherlands prove it should be legalised. Im an exsmoker and wouldnt start again if it was legalised. But aside from the fact you need to know your limit/strain I can see no reason people shouldnt use it if they want to for relaxation. Was a good programme i thought and will be legalised so that the 6 billion spent each year on it can be taxed instead of lost

 

http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk...r_arrested_following_introduction_of_new_law/

 

First comment: Arresting someone for driving after smoking is "[p]olitical correctness gone mad. There'll be no grey areas left at this rate. Obviously driving around wired on class A's is reckless. But a nice relaxing smoke on the way to Tesco's for the weekly shop never hurt anyone probably."

 

Can't really complain about the new law as it comes from a good place but the implementation is poor. The law specifically states that the driver doesn't have to be impaired at all, they just have to have it in there system. So once again cannabis is treated as worse than alcohol despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Quite happy for a legal drive limit to exist for all substances, but making laws that specify that someone can be charged regardless of there actions having any effect on anyone or anything is wrong. How can you punish someone for something that that has no negative effect? Fair enough, charge the ones who are actually impaired but to have a law that specifically states that the person being prosecuted doesn't have to in any way be impaired or a danger, is wrong.

 

what precise evidence are you lot pointing to that potheads can drive as well as anyone else?

http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence

according to this your nice relaxed drive mean you probably drive like a geriatric and go slow but woe betide anyone in your way cos you won't react and stop in time. thats a 15 seconds search guys.

don't drive stoned, drunk or ****ing tired.. have some responsibility.

 

I completely agree and would add 'or on the phone'.

 

yes totally. texting while driving is scandalous too.

 

From studies done to date it suggests stoned drivers are far more cautious, won't try to go for gaps they normally would, change lane position slightly more than normal and obviously depending on how stoned they are it changes reaction times. There's nothing conclusive in regards to it making the drivers more dangerous, but common sense dictates that being under the influence of anything will change your perception of the situation and therefor effect your driving.

I don't have a problem with trying to stop people who are driving while impaired and causing a danger to others on the road. But the law specifically states that the driver doesn't have to be impaired, they don't have to in any way be effected in there driving, they just have to have it in the system.

With alcohol there is a legal limit you can have in your system while driving, the idea being before that point the driver isn't impaired so isn't actually doing anything wrong or worthy of punishment. Yet with cannabis, the law specifies that no impairment is necessary, they just need it in there system. This is wrong. Punishing people for doing something that hasn't effected anyone goes against morality in my opinion.