Re-legalisation

[El Profesor]

So far as I know this idea was started by the Dagga Couple in South Africa. The idea is that, when talking about cannabis and law, use the word relegalisation instead of legalisation. There are a couple of very good reasons to do this, first of all it makes the non-clued up reader/listener realise that the criminalisation of the plant is a relatively recent thing. The second effect using this term has is that it makes people think more critically and analytically about why it was criminalised in the first place, and by who. Using this term opens up the door to these historical conversations and it's through understanding the history that the case for relegalisation is best put into context. Use this approach and even Dail Mail readers start to agree with you.

When we talk about legalisation with people opposed to it, more often than not the debate immediately gets bogged down in first having to refute all the post-1930 propaganda myths. Talk about relegalisation and straight away you get into the undebatable history of its criminalisation.

What ye think?

Edited August 3, 2014 by El Profesor

[grooving]

Normalise!

[erbivore9]

Re normalise!

[Cambium]

AFAIK, it was never legal, just not considered as illegal.

[bigbadbuddha]

AFAIK, it was never legal, just not considered as illegal.

Explain the difference.

[Deranged World]

Explain the difference.

Basically everything is considered to be legal although there is no law to say it is legal. Only once the governbent decides they don't like something or wish to extort it to their own ends do they create a law to make it illegal.

Like legal highs, they are only classed as legal because they are not yet illegal, and that's why they can be sold in shops until the law can be created to make them illegal.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Deranged World

[Bones de WeedZard]

tomatoes for example were never made illegal afaik.

spuds, on t' other hand, were at least heavily tampered with, but that's historic conspiracy material... oh, wait!

edit: NORMALIZE!!!

Edited August 3, 2014 by Bones de WeedZard

[iBMe]

re-de-illegalize?

[Guest jacks lad]

for it to be normalised it need be legal.

[hector 1804]

Fuk it! Just smoke a spiff and fuk who cares........I don't

[chronic1]

Cannabis is illegal? Not in my world!

[Hughie Green]

Actually cannabis is not illegal, it is our possession of it without a license that is the actual offence, the law doesn't criminalise cannabis only people, which is why you cant "legalise it" because "it" is not illegal.

[Bones de WeedZard]

words words words, possession & production is what needs ta be "legal" ta be normal & ta be accepted, now in which order?!?

[Hughie Green]

Well considering that most countries that want to do something about cannabis or drugs in general opt for decriminalisation,

that is decriminalisation of possession because possession is the offence, it is not decriminalisation of cannabis it is decriminalisation

of human interaction i.e. possession,

"words words words" they may be but that is what the law operates with, perhaps if all those interested in cannabis activism should actually read the misuse of drugs act and perhaps the conditions of the Single Convention on narcotics regarding cannabis then we wouldn't have had

many thousands wasting their time calling for legalisation, decades of people asking for the wrong thing suits a government that doesn't intend to change.