Hughie Green Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) The Real Reason Why Drugs Are Illegal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHvedOv86dQ Edited February 7, 2013 by Hughie Green 15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp1n Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Cool clip thanks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughie Green Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 Interview with director of The House I live in Eugene Jarecki 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 good question,drugs=money=power=poloticians=business=banks=corporations=multinationals=illuminati...say no more 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughie Green Posted February 12, 2013 Author Share Posted February 12, 2013 ht tp://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pzz69/Storyville_20122013_The_House_I_Live_In/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indicatoker420 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) good question,drugs=money=power=poloticians=business=banks=corporations=multinationals=illuminati...say no more I'm with you on that one mate. They make out that they hate drugs and all this and that but then why the hell do people like the queen and politicians manage to be good friends with the celebs that love drugs. They create the system that works best for them, not us. They do shit and say shit. I'm not a believer in iluminati btw. Edited February 12, 2013 by indicatoker420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunshine band Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Its so sad to come on this forum and still see victims of the propaganda coup that makes you think 'drugs are illegal', let me tell you straight, that's bollocks - drugs have no legal status, no agency before the law and can never be legal or illegal. The law can only control people with respect to objects, it can never make objects be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince noir rock n roll star Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Its so sad to come on this forum and still see victims of the propaganda coup that makes you think 'drugs are illegal', let me tell you straight, that's bollocks - drugs have no legal status, no agency before the law and can never be legal or illegal. The law can only control people with respect to objects, it can never make objects be illegal. rubbish ...ive got a criminal pair of shorts in me wardrobe . 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughie Green Posted March 11, 2013 Author Share Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) Did you watch the video sunshine band?, any comment on it's content?. Edited March 11, 2013 by Hughie Green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovin' Mary Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Its so sad to come on this forum and still see victims of the propaganda coup that makes you think 'drugs are illegal', let me tell you straight, that's bollocks - drugs have no legal status, no agency before the law and can never be legal or illegal. The law can only control people with respect to objects, it can never make objects be illegal. So I can't go to prison for what's in my loft? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunshine band Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) The history is probably all true, yes its racist. But the whole world has been duped beyond this to such an extent that we have the 'reformists' using the same nonsensical paradigm as the prohibitionists. Yes its illegal to produce cannabis in your loft without a license as the law makes it an offence for a PERSON to produce this plant, its the person that acts unlawfully, the plant cannot be legal, illegal, lawful, illicit, have war declared on or any such thing. The contemporary discourse of ‘drug control’ is characterised by the pervasive use of various transferred epithets. Such forms of language generally effect a reversal of the subject and object, conferring human attributes upon objects (eg ‘disabled toilet’). In this context, expressions such as ‘war on drugs’, ‘legalize marijuana’ and ‘illegal drugs’ dominate the polemic of both prohibitionists and most reformists alike. These expressions de-personalise core human values and liberties, and underpin a ‘smoke and mirrors’ deception inherent within the administration of law. This leads to the arbitrary policing of modalities of thought enabled through the ingestion of psychoactive substances. Rather than accept for a moment that the actual focus should be drugs, we must start from the perspective of what drugs actually do for us (outcomes). What is truly controlled is the intimate relationship between man and drug, as Richard G. Boire observes, a war on consciousness itself. This censorial reality is obscured on multiple levels. The transference of the human subject into a mere object in language is much more objectionable than a purely semantic complaint, indeed not only do government explain their policy in legally nonsensical terms, but seemingly the administration of legislation is founded upon misconstruction of the law. The significance is that the lines defining our legal rights are formed around the definition of an object, not the person, of course legal processes apply to the subject (person), and their experience and outcomes with respect to the object (drug), and not the other way round. The legal term ‘controlled drugs’ is merely a schedule of substances of which we are controlled with respect to, it is not the drugs that are controlled (as in the verb to control), they exist as property (nouns), and controls are made with respect to human actions associated to these specified drugs. Unlike the human subject, a drug has no agency; it is misidentified as a binary commodity being supposedly legal or illegal irrespective of the consumer’s outcomes with it. Edited March 11, 2013 by sunshine band 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Layne Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 But the whole world has been duped beyond this to such an extent that we have the 'reformists' using the same nonsensical paradigm as the prohibitionists. Yes its illegal to produce cannabis in your loft without a license as the law makes it an offence for a PERSON to produce this plant, its the person that acts unlawfully, the plant cannot be legal, illegal, lawful, illicit, have war declared on or any such thing. Plus 1. Which is why talk of "Legalising cannabis" is absurd nonsense. The use of cannabis, however, needs decriminalising. IOW: Free The Stoners! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunshine band Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Plus 1. Which is why talk of "Legalising cannabis" is absurd nonsense. The use of cannabis, however, needs decriminalising. IOW: Free The Stoners! Much as I don't want to pick up people who are getting it and thanks you for that, it is also a fact that the law doesn't forbid the use of drugs per se either. There is no crime of using cannabis, but of course it's pretty hard to use it without POSSESSING it. The significance of the point is that parliament didn't forbid the use of drugs, but sought to regulate property rights to curb misuse without actually banning all use - this allows the regulations in the Act to be used to make reasonable differentiations between misuse causing social problems from use that does not. So whilst I agree we need to make peaceful use effectively legal by making these regulations work and be fit for purpose, we should never accept that use is illegal as that is also part of the big lie of 'illegal or illicit' drugs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughie Green Posted March 12, 2013 Author Share Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) A lot of us do get it sunshine band, I've argued the point often but it strikes me that supposedly knowledgeable people concerned with cannabis do not get the point and I suspect that the general public will never get it, they simply don't care enough about it to think very hard about it, being on a site primarily concerned with cannabis we must not fall into the trap of believing or assuming that the information and access to that information that we see regarding aspects of drug law are common knowledge, on the whole people/the public only pay attention to a topic if it affects them directly, cannabis law generally doesn't, this week I have been amazed to discover that quite a lot of people are unaware of ATOS and the effect of the welfare reform and most have never heard of the bedroom tax?, this is mostly because these things affect minorities and the majority don't care, if we cant educate people concerned with cannabis about the reality of the situation what hope is there for the public or those that would and do actively oppose reform, I mean how long have yourself and others been going on about it and how many actually understand the problem or accept that they are arguing within the wrong framework. Edited March 12, 2013 by Hughie Green 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot_Rock Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 ... The significance of the point is that parliament didn't forbid the use of drugs, but sought to regulate property rights to curb misuse without actually banning all use - this allows the regulations in the Act to be used to make reasonable differentiations between misuse causing social problems from use that does not... Please explain this like you're talking to a 5 year old, I must be thick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now