Question about the misuse of drugs act.

Will Gill · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:27

Burnsy2023 said:
Sometimes. Woman voting could be said to be a good thing. This was once illegal.

eh?

you are talking about something which used to be illegal,

something which is currently illegal is bad, by definition, no?

Aleksandrs · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:28

Sp00n said:
But it's their choice.

True, and clearly I can't dictate to people what to put inside their bodies.

I'm just saying for me personally, it breaks my heart a bit to see any mate of mine doing anything like this, whether it's getting paralytically drunk, smoking a pack or 2 of fags a day, or getting high on weed. Makes me feel helpless as I know it's not good for them but I can't really do anything about it.

Burnsy2023 · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:28

Will Gill said:
eh?

you are talking about something which used to be illegal,

something which is currently illegal is bad, by definition, no?

That depends on your opinion and perspective. Law is only a reflection of current societal opinion. Do you think the law against homosexuality was ever right? If it wasn't then maybe we just have some laws that are overdue for revocation?

Will Gill · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:32

Burnsy2023 said:
That depends on your opinion and perspective. Law is only a reflection of current societal opinion. Do you think the law against homosexuality was ever right? If it wasn't then surely we just have some laws that are overdue for revocation?

granted and a seperate discussion

currently though,

something illegal = bad

we can argue semantics till we are blue in the face, chuck up pie charts, bar graphs and quotes from the pope, it doesnt change a thing just allows you to voice your personal opinion.

The Halk · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:35

Burnsy2023 said:
I don't think it's that simple. You can have evidence to help make the call, but unfortunately science doesn't have all the answers on this, as we're trying to predict future human behaviours amongst other things. This debate doesn't really have any concrete answers.

You're quite right that it isn't as simple.

However what we have now (under either of the 3 parties) is nothing like a scientific way. What's appropriate is much closer to the simplistic way I described it.

deuse · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:47

Will Gill said:
that relates to a job application form not an immigration form, on the immigration form they purely ask about convictions.

When I did my all my immigration forms(4) two asked about convictions that's when my attorney
asked if I had any cautions by the police(in the UK) because when the FBI does there check
for my job with the US Gov and a caution showed up and I did not say I would be out on my ass.

And by the way you have to fill in a form for a work permit while you are waiting for Citizenship\Naturalization
My Citizenship took two years to come through.

rypt · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:48

Burnsy2023 said:
Depending on the study you read. However, this are vastly skewed by the fact that alcohol is legal and cannabis is not. The availability and social acceptance of alcohol inflates the majority of metrics used. In the hypothetical world where cannabis is legal and alcohol is not, there are so many variables, you can't say with any certainty that one is safer over another.

Cannabis is legal in some countries though, one of them being Holland

rypt · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:50

The Halk said:
No, because that attacks the stitching that holds out society together. We have a society based on concensus. If we reject the rules that we don't like then other people will do the same. And that cannot produce a society.

That only works if the rules are fairly and correctly set, which they are not

Hamster · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:50

rypt said:
Cannabis is legal in some countries though, one of them being Holland

Cannabis is still illegal in Holland.

Will Gill · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:50

deuse said:
When I did my all my immigration forms(4) two asked about convictions that's when my attorney
asked if I had any cautions by the police(in the UK) because when the FBI does there check
for my job with the US Gov and a caution showed up and I did not say I would be out on my ass.

And by the way you have to fill in a form for a work permit while you are waiting for Citizenship\Naturalization
My Citizenship took two years to come through.

I'm afraid you are speaking to someone who went through exactly the same process and worked in new york for the best part of two years

cautions don't count, neither do driving offences

I'm living proof

citizen0100 · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:52

Burnsy2023 said:
Sometimes. Woman voting could be said to be a good thing. This was once illegal.

Good point, I think its healthy to question laws (maybe not break them depending on the law).

Knubje · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:53

I thought that being unable to enter the States or Australia was down to criminal convictions.

This meaning that you have been to court for an offense such as; possession or dealing and got done for it then you will have problems entering.

I thought that if you are stopped with 2 doobies (like OPs friend) and the police caution you and take the drugs then it doesn't affect your ability to visit a country on holiday or whatever.

Obviously for higher security where they check EVERYTHING about you then that's fair game.

Also, what is the time limit that a caution disappears from your record, or doesn't it?

Just interested really.

Von Smallhausen · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:55

rypt said:
Cannabis is legal in some countries though, one of them being Holland

Yeah, it's legal, but is ain't a hundred percent legal. I mean you can't walk into a restaurant, roll a joint, and start puffin' away. You're only supposed to smoke in your home or certain designated places.

Yeah, it breaks down like this: it's legal to buy it, it's legal to own it and, if you're the proprietor of a hash bar, it's legal to sell it. It's legal to carry it, which doesn't really matter 'cause -- get a load of this -- if the cops stop you, it's illegal for them to search you. Searching you is a right that the cops in Amsterdam don't have.

Al Vallario · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:57

The Halk said:
No, because that attacks the stitching that holds out society together. We have a society based on concensus. If we reject the rules that we don't like then other people will do the same. And that cannot produce a society.

That's great and all; I'm not sure about your assertion that without consensus there can be no society, but I'll overlook that.

The point I'm getting at is that we ought not to take the legitimacy of the law as given in circumstances such as these. From what exactly do you suppose the state, or more precisely the legislation it produces and enforces, derives its legitimacy? At what point did you or I consent, to use the case in point, to the law prohibiting the possession of cannabis? :confused:

Deadbeat · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:57

Von Smallhausen said:
Yeah, it's legal, but is ain't a hundred percent legal. I mean you can't walk into a restaurant, roll a joint, and start puffin' away. You're only supposed to smoke in your home or certain designated places.

Yeah, it breaks down like this: it's legal to buy it, it's legal to own it and, if you're the proprietor of a hash bar, it's legal to sell it. It's legal to carry it, which doesn't really matter 'cause -- get a load of this -- if the cops stop you, it's illegal for them to search you. Searching you is a right that the cops in Amsterdam don't have.

This sounds familiar

Burnsy2023 · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:58

rypt said:
Cannabis is legal in some countries though, one of them being Holland

And I think you'll find that they don't have the same issues with alcohol that we do. What works in one country won't necessarily transfer to ours.

Al Vallario · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:59

Von Smallhausen said:
Yeah, it's legal, but is ain't a hundred percent legal. I mean you can't walk into a restaurant, roll a joint, and start puffin' away. You're only supposed to smoke in your home or certain designated places.

Yeah, it breaks down like this: it's legal to buy it, it's legal to own it and, if you're the proprietor of a hash bar, it's legal to sell it. It's legal to carry it, which doesn't really matter 'cause -- get a load of this -- if the cops stop you, it's illegal for them to search you. Searching you is a right that the cops in Amsterdam don't have.

I'm going, that's all there is to it, I'm ******' going.

deuse · 6 Jan 2011 at 14:59

Will Gill said:
I'm afraid you are speaking to someone who went through exactly the same process and worked in new york for the best part of two years

cautions don't count, neither do driving offences

I'm living proof

Unless they find out you have

So you have dual citizenship?

Burnsy2023 · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:00

Von Smallhausen said:
Yeah, it's legal, but is ain't a hundred percent legal. I mean you can't walk into a restaurant, roll a joint, and start puffin' away. You're only supposed to smoke in your home or certain designated places.

Yeah, it breaks down like this: it's legal to buy it, it's legal to own it and, if you're the proprietor of a hash bar, it's legal to sell it. It's legal to carry it, which doesn't really matter 'cause -- get a load of this -- if the cops stop you, it's illegal for them to search you. Searching you is a right that the cops in Amsterdam don't have.

Haven't they just made it illegal to sell to tourists?

The Halk · 6 Jan 2011 at 15:01

Al Vallario said:
That's great and all; I'm not sure about your assertion that without consensus there can be no society, but I'll overlook that.

The point I'm getting at is that we ought not to take the legitimacy of the law as given in circumstances such as these. From what exactly do you suppose the state, or more precisely the legislation it produces and enforces, derives its legitimacy? At what point did you or I consent, to use the case in point, to the law prohibiting the possession of cannabis?

We have to object to laws we don't like rather than ignore them.

Society just simply is based on consensus. It doesn't have to be total though

But when a law exists that we disagree with, we need to voice our objection, and ask for it to be changed. That's the problem with the insane copyright laws we have (not just in the UK). The public aren't telling politicians to find a solution. Instead we have this disconnect where the laws don't match what people feel the laws should be, but the state continues to try to enforce them and does a bad job.