Cannabis is a honest drug honest!

[Rx-Heaven]

Fair enough i suppose arnie i understand where your coming from.

I just think if its going to get passed in the uk it would be totally different to the states anyway.

Probably be prescription only at £7.50 or whatever scrips are now and i expect it would be sativex spray or nothing.

[Arnold Layne]

I think you are probably correct Rx-heaven, a spray like Sativex at the usual prescription fee cost.

And in such a scene, the growing of one's own would pose a direct threat to the profits of people like the makers of Sativex.

Moreover, in the UK we have such a nanny state, and most folks accept this ~ cowering and cringing like serfs of old. No way will such a state allow any "smoking"! Think of the health risk and make a law straight away!

The one thing Governments cannot allow themselves to do is Trust the Public, and allow them to live free adult lives! By all means let Government educate and encourage, but beyond that they should not go ~ AND WE SHOULD NOT LET THEM GO THERE EITHER!!

Screw nanny! Its time we revealed her to be the controlling, power hungry, stupid law making freak tart that she is! Not bowing before her like so many loyal slaves slobbering and drooling over her wart encrusted feet! Yuk!

[tengreenfingers]

Step 1? Yes, folks often raise this. But I don't see why step 2 follows - if HMG gets control over weed, with stiff regulations and high taxes - what reason would they have for moving into a more liberal zone? None at all, surely?

Agreed. I don't actually see it as a desirable step one at all, just that it could be. I'd much rather see cannabis on a par with alcohol *at worst* as a step 1... no tax at all for home grow and I'm not sure I'd agree with a cannabis duty for sold cannabis. I certainly don't agree with growing licences.

Anyway, as I see it, if we can push them into any sort of legal model, we can push them into a different one if we get a poor system up front. Re-asking your question, what reason would they have for moving into a more liberal zone? Cannabis is already held down for reasons of money, jobs (police, prisons, courts, rehab, pharma etc.) and subject to the worst aspects of nannyism - why liberalise?

Home growing ~ not everyone can. The extremely disabled, the terminally ill, the folks with small homes, bedsits etc ~ loads of reasons why some folks cannot grow, and they are usually the neediest of people too.

In a scene where HMG controls and regulates cannabis, Home Growing could be seen as a direct threat to the revenues flowing into the exchequer. And like with today's electricity scammers, any mention of fiscal crime sends magistrates and judges into an apoplectic state of shock, in which they tend to dole out positively Dickensian sentences!

Apart from the Dickensian sentences (a point with which I agree - "financial" crimes against the state and big business seem to be treated more harshly than physical crimes against people much of the time)... this seems like the growing situation either stays the same as now for some people (ill, disabled, small homes) or stays the same for everyone - but possession becomes a non-issue. That at least would be an improvement.

Not trying to argue against you, just brighten things a little.

Needless to say I'd be deeply unhappy with any system in which any people were barred from home growing. Those who can't home-grow should be able to have someone else grow for them.

Free weed? yes, I believe anyone who needs it should get it for free (like DANZIG and his oil). I don't mind folks making a living, and setting a fair price for their weed. But today's prices are obscene and cannot be justified. In California, the average price is (I am going by what I can find on the net - 3xw.priceofweed.com - ) $271 per ounce. Which boils down to c£175 per Oz)

I think £100 is as much as any weed is worth. And in a situation where the law actually permits the growing and selling, then that price should be way down - let's put a ball park figure..... I think £50 is reasonable, at most. With hefty discounts for the disabled and terminally ill, even 100% discounts.

Sounds reasonable. I know for sure that if it was legal I'd be home-growing WAY more than I could ever use myself and helping out some people I know... and it wouldn't cost them a penny.

Moreover, in the UK we have such a nanny state, and most folks accept this ~ cowering and cringing like serfs of old. No way will such a state allow any "smoking"! Think of the health risk and make a law straight away!

This is definitely a concern.

The whole idea of the nanny state repulses me... and the widespread acceptance of the nanny state repulses me FAR more. In fact it infuriates me.

The one thing Governments cannot allow themselves to do is Trust the Public, and allow them to live free adult lives! By all means let Government educate and encourage, but beyond that they should not go ~ AND WE SHOULD NOT LET THEM GO THERE EITHER!!

Screw nanny! Its time we revealed her to be the controlling, power hungry, stupid law making freak tart that she is! Not bowing before her like so many loyal slaves slobbering and drooling over her wart encrusted feet! Yuk!

Couldn't have said it better.

[pier09]

Iky

I thought alcohol and tobacco weren't scheduled.

Inclined to agree, though I'd be concerned that simply rescheduling it would make little difference in practice. As there's nothing to stop a future government wanting to be tough on drugs popping it right back to schedule 1 again.

Completely agree that it should be on a legal par with alcohol and tobacco - at least. Probably shouldn't attract the duty they do though.

...unless of course the tea party comes into or near power, but this would push the whole thing back a few years...

You think?

I always had the impression the Tea Party where of the "fuck off and leave us alone" persuasion.

Sure, the'd fight against anything where the government was going to use taxes to get people high, just like they'd fight against the government using taxes to dole out beers.

For the most part they seem to be for small government, low tax and personal liberty. All three of those points scream "legalisation" to me, though I doubt it's so clear cut (either way) in the tea party.

The tea party is wedded to the far right christian fundamentalist and controlled by

the most reactionary forces in the U.S. ( aren't they mostly funded by the Koch brothers?)

Their surface small people against big gov. is just a sham, dont get fooled.

[Arnold Layne]

Not trying to argue against you, just brighten things a little.

No worries, I didn't think you were arguing or having a pop ~ seems we are almost of the same mind anyway

The real important issue for me, is the range and extent of Government. We call them "Ministers", and a minister is a servant, that's what the word means. But when did we get to the point we are at now, when "ministers" seek to rule rather than to serve?

Its time to pick away until the whole pack of lying, deceitful cards comes tumbling down in ruins. What lies the other side of this ruin I know not. But when we get round to restructuring the rubble, "Minister" and "Serve" should be the watchwords, the foundation stones of the a new regime.

There may come a time of anarchy, and that will be chaotic. But out of chaos, order comes.

Revolution ~ Now!

[Guest Hashbeck]

Follow America? Please, dear god NO!

We (the poodle) do far too much of that as it is, and where's it got us?

[tengreenfingers]

No worries, I didn't think you were arguing or having a pop ~ seems we are almost of the same mind anyway

The real important issue for me, is the range and extent of Government. We call them "Ministers", and a minister is a servant, that's what the word means. But when did we get to the point we are at now, when "ministers" seek to rule rather than to serve?

I think so too.

Agreed on the servant becoming the master too. I think there are a few factors leading to the current situation. The foundation of "our" political system was monarchy. That parliament, not the individual (or even "the people" as a group) is sovereign... that many in modern politics are career politicians... and the general spinelessness of people in accepting state control over their language (PC) and more. Accepting the state as nanny (and fast becoming more "mother" than nanny) has been a pretty long process but as we started off as serfs and never really became free it's not taken much to get us right back there.

The situation in America is very different. It's not so many generations since they fought an actual war against the powers that be and bought the freedom of the people with blood. There was a second war fought - but lost (whatever the other issues were, including slavery, the big issue of the civil war was state sovereignty over the federal government) which leaves them in the strange position of thinking they are free, having many of the characteristics of freedom (including being armed to the teeth) and yet still being shafted by the government. A lot of that probably comes from the cause of the civil war largely being taught as one of slavery and not of the proper role of government.

Its time to pick away until the whole pack of lying, deceitful cards comes tumbling down in ruins. What lies the other side of this ruin I know not. But when we get round to restructuring the rubble, "Minister" and "Serve" should be the watchwords, the foundation stones of the a new regime.

There may come a time of anarchy, and that will be chaotic. But out of chaos, order comes.

Revolution ~ Now!

I could go with that. The only part that worries me is how statist most revolution-inclined people seem to be. I can't help thinking we'd throw one thing off only to get something far, far worse.

[Arnold Layne]

A fear I share, too.

[SirSativa]

Im very glad I've be able to hear your views I'd love to debate but I've just got in off nights and I'm tired but next opportunity I get to sit down and think I will!

Arnie, green fingers and pier you have all raised remarkable points that i didn't even begin to think of!

Personally I think the government and the big drug companies are in each other pockets, but more on that another time

Thanks for the video gonna plug my earphones in and fall to sleep Peace