11 years for cannabis

[UtwigMU]

Brian, I think you don't have the touch with present.

In generations aged 40 and lower I don't know almost anyone who hasn't smoked a joint at least once in life and quite a few regular users. And they are all normal people who work, have families, some are even very successful entrepreneurs or artists. For example a group of normal working people with children will smoke a joint at a birthday party, new year's party a few times a year (on street or on balcony of course) just like your generation would have a drink. Also the use of other drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine, ecstasy is quite common (~30% occasional users).

It is very common here to see marijuana smoked on streets in certain parts of city and in front of some bars/restaurants and it's tolerated.

While I agree that overuse of cannabis is harmful (just like with other things) I don't see any argument for it to be criminalized. Also I think state should not regulate what adults people do with their bodies. If they want to eat fat food, drink, smoke it is up to them.

Besides legalizing marijuana would take away the attraction of forbidden fruit to young people and it would be like cigarettes and alcohol - 18 years and above. What has become common here is employers regularly testing their employees for drug use, which I think is infringement on privacy and I think groundless testing of everyone is a violation of privacy.

I'd like to add here that I'm not a fan of marijuana at all and I don't like it's effects and I don't use it.


My view is that all cultures since beginning of times knew and used drugs and that all drugs should be legalized and decriminalized as it there would be far less problems.

[Brian Ellis]

employers regularly testing their employees for drug use, which I think is infringement on privacy and I think groundless testing of everyone is a violation of privacy.

Yes, I may be out-of-touch, but I'll take you up on that one. Drugs, like alcohol, affect the performance of the body and mind. You will agree that anyone turning up at work after a few beers will be incapable of doing their work properly and should be sanctioned. Should it not be the same for people under the influence of drugs? Unfortunately, it is sometimes less apparent than if one is drunk. The employer has a legal liability to his other employees, especially if a partaker drives a car or machinery. He is therefore perfectly in his rights to determine that he is always fit for work and it is not an invasion of privacy but a sensible precaution to have employees tested for substances that may impair their duties. I say this as an ex-employer.

[KRSESQ]

A couple of notes:

1. I've met and still know some people who started smoking pot in their teens and still do, and yeah, they're pretty dumb. They're also some of the friendliest and most inoffensive people I know. I know I can always rely on them to help move heavy furniture if needed. They also hold jobs and pay taxes. None of them are bums.

2. All other health risk/benefits arguments aside, I've observed that people who've drank too much tend to want to fight and then vomit on you and pass out. People who've had too much pot sit on the couch and eat cheetos and watch tv or play video games until they fall asleep.

3. It's an interesting chicken/egg question: which came first? The psychosis or the substance-abuse? All the psychologists I've met (and I've met a few! ) agree that the substance abuse is the result of self-medicating their pre-existing emotional or mental problems with whatever they can get their hands on. It becomes a kind of feedback loop.

4. The biggest danger seems to lie in mixing intoxicants, for example alcohol and downers, or pot and uppers. Bad Medicine. Aside from that, more people are killed or ruined by the illegal drug trade than are killed or ruined by the illegal drugs themselves. (More Americans died last year from prescription drug abuse than from illegal drug abuse.)

5. I keep coming back to the mind-boggling expense of the whole "war on drugs" endeavor. 41 years now, at an average of $30,000,000,000 US inflation-adjusted per year, for a total to-date of $1.23x10exp12 US (that's 7.69% of the current national debt), and what has it bought us? Illegal drugs are more plentiful, more potent, and cheaper now than at any time in the past. Drug laws are tougher and civil liberties eroded, criminal courts are choked and the prisons are stuffed to overflowing. Who is benefitting from all that money? Certainly not front-line cops, whose salaries start low and in these cash-strapped times tend to stay low. Certainly not cash-strapped communities struggling to keep their cops and judges AND DAs AND public defenders AND jailers on the payroll AND feed and house those prisoners. The only ones I see benefitting from the status quo are the drug lords and law enforcement industry investors (and the congresspeople in their pocket).

[Umfriend]

Yes, I may be out-of-touch, but I'll take you up on that one. Drugs, like alcohol, affect the performance of the body and mind. You will agree that anyone turning up at work after a few beers will be incapable of doing their work properly and should be sanctioned. Should it not be the same for people under the influence of drugs? Unfortunately, it is sometimes less apparent than if one is drunk. The employer has a legal liability to his other employees, especially if a partaker drives a car or machinery. He is therefore perfectly in his rights to determine that he is always fit for work and it is not an invasion of privacy but a sensible precaution to have employees tested for substances that may impair their duties. I say this as an ex-employer.

Oh, I agree with this one. However, I think many drugs can be found while no longer effective for far longer than alcohol. So, I am fine with tests as long as the employer does not get any results that point to anything else than under influence during work hours.

[Evildead666]

Some people here seem to be stuck in the "reefer madness" days.

France has a quite large population of potheads, it is well known.
The only problem I see is that the alcohol problem is magnitudes higher, especially on the roads.
Legalize it, tax it, and reap the benefits.
It would probably pull us out of this recession thing we are in.

[Dr Mordrid]

"Don't go to bed with no price on your head,
Don't do it.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Keep your eye on the sparrow,
When the going gets narrow.

Don't roll the dice if you can't pay the price,
Don't do it.

Don't run your feet down a dead-end street.

Don't do me dirt or you're gonna get hurt
Don't do it.

Don't run away till you hear what I say.

Aint gonna fight with no thief in the night
Wont do it.

I'm gonna go where the cold wind don't blow.
...."

[Umfriend]

Don't make me do time
If what I do don't hurt you a dime
Should not do it
Freedom

[Brian Ellis]

California is cracking down on retail outlets of marijuana

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19723717

Switzerland, noted for its avant-garde help for hard drugs, is introducing a new law which "decriminalises" possession of cannabis, but still makes it liable to an on-the-spot fine of CHF 100 for adults.

Although Switzerland voted against full legalization of cannabis a few years ago, the topic is still being debated. Parliament must now consider a new compromise, which could reduce penalties for people over 18 years of age.

The proposal would see a new distinction in the way individuals are treated which would depend on the amount of weed in a person’s possession. Any adult caught carrying 10 grams or less could simply receive an on-the-spot fine of 100 francs ($109) rather than being dragged before a judge.

Minors would not be able to take advantage of this distinction, and would still be required to go before the courts.

http://www.thelocal.ch/page/view/swiss-agree-on-100-franc-fines-for-pot-smokers

This bill has now passed both Parliamentary houses and will enter into law very quickly. CHF 100/joint will shortly be legal!