Why is Cannabis still illegal?
Discussion
steveT350C said:
If I want to smoke a joint, I will smoke a joint. If I want a dab of mdma I will have a dab.
The law is irrelevant in my decision making.
I absolutely defend the sovereignty of my consciousness.
Too right good sir! The law is irrelevant in my decision making.
I absolutely defend the sovereignty of my consciousness.
FredClogs said:
Tonsko said:
You really didn't understand what he said. Blimey.
OK. He didn't say it should be legal. He said that the law, whatever it said, would not alter his decision to ingest a drug if he so wanted.
Well we can all convince ourselves of one reason or another why one law or another doesn't apply to us... Hence my original question - what does this even mean?OK. He didn't say it should be legal. He said that the law, whatever it said, would not alter his decision to ingest a drug if he so wanted.
Sovereignty - is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.
Personal sovereignty is exactly the same in that you make your own decisions for yourself and they are not obstructed by outside persons or corporations and do not cause harm to others.
Some would argue that personal sovereignty has been eroded with political correctness and 1984 style laws which have been coming into effect over the years. Governing sovereignty has been lost by many countries due to debt and political factors. Take Greece for example. It's not at the whim of Goldman Sacs, the IMF and Brussels. It so no longer to the definition of the term, a sovereign entity making its own decisions but more firefighting a situation it has been back into due to the financial system.
I would very highly recommend watching Graham Hancock's TED talk about the War on Consciousness and I hope this may help you reflect from another point of view why it is so important that we as people have the choice to do what we like even if it may be potentially harmful.
remkingston said:
Fred Google is a powerful thing (and I'm not trying to be condescending here):
Sovereignty - is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.
Personal sovereignty is exactly the same in that you make your own decisions for yourself and they are not obstructed by outside persons or corporations and do not cause harm to others.
Some would argue that personal sovereignty has been eroded with political correctness and 1984 style laws which have been coming into effect over the years. Governing sovereignty has been lost by many countries due to debt and political factors. Take Greece for example. It's not at the whim of Goldman Sacs, the IMF and Brussels. It so no longer to the definition of the term, a sovereign entity making its own decisions but more firefighting a situation it has been back into due to the financial system.
I would very highly recommend watching Graham Hancock's TED talk about the War on Consciousness and I hope this may help you reflect from another point of view why it is so important that we as people have the choice to do what we like even if it may be potentially harmful.
I understand. I know Graham Hancock and his views. But the idea has more holes than a young goths ear hole.Sovereignty - is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.
Personal sovereignty is exactly the same in that you make your own decisions for yourself and they are not obstructed by outside persons or corporations and do not cause harm to others.
Some would argue that personal sovereignty has been eroded with political correctness and 1984 style laws which have been coming into effect over the years. Governing sovereignty has been lost by many countries due to debt and political factors. Take Greece for example. It's not at the whim of Goldman Sacs, the IMF and Brussels. It so no longer to the definition of the term, a sovereign entity making its own decisions but more firefighting a situation it has been back into due to the financial system.
I would very highly recommend watching Graham Hancock's TED talk about the War on Consciousness and I hope this may help you reflect from another point of view why it is so important that we as people have the choice to do what we like even if it may be potentially harmful.
You are not a sovereign entity. Your body does not belong to you - it belongs to us all... You want to understand this you need to stop reading and listening to pop fiction pot head writers and read John Locke, Kant, Hobbes etc... These are the men you really defined modern civilisation. There is no "you" to be sovereign, you're an agent for humanity, a conduit through which our species passes its lineage, everything you think, everything you are, everything you know is a result of the wider human experience and you are contracted to that (the covenant) - and to preserve it's integrity.
otolith said:
FredClogs said:
Your body does not belong to you - it belongs to us all...
Is there anything you people won't try to nationalise? 
ts what you do with your body or what they do with it either!FredClogs said:
I understand. I know Graham Hancock and his views. But the idea has more holes than a young goths ear hole.
You are not a sovereign entity. Your body does not belong to you - it belongs to us all... You want to understand this you need to stop reading and listening to pop fiction pot head writers and read John Locke, Kant, Hobbes etc... These are the men you really defined modern civilisation. There is no "you" to be sovereign, you're an agent for humanity, a conduit through which our species passes its lineage, everything you think, everything you are, everything you know is a result of the wider human experience and you are contracted to that (the covenant) - and to preserve it's integrity.
I have never read such a load of pretentious drivel in all my life. You are not a sovereign entity. Your body does not belong to you - it belongs to us all... You want to understand this you need to stop reading and listening to pop fiction pot head writers and read John Locke, Kant, Hobbes etc... These are the men you really defined modern civilisation. There is no "you" to be sovereign, you're an agent for humanity, a conduit through which our species passes its lineage, everything you think, everything you are, everything you know is a result of the wider human experience and you are contracted to that (the covenant) - and to preserve it's integrity.
FredClogs said:
That's the way it is... If you want to live in a civilised culture with some resemblance of a controlled future and foreseeable outcomes, if you want armies of soldiers who are prepared to put their bodies on the line for the protection of it and Doctors and Nurses who are prepared to dedicate their lives to saving your flesh bag then you have to accept the covenant, don't like it then move to Central Africa - no one there is going to give two sts what you do with your body or what they do with it either!
Presumably you extend this to other things that are potentially dangerous and/or could put people out? Most forms of travel, most foods, most sporting activities etc. Or do you juat pick at your convenience? ts what you do with your body or what they do with it either!FredClogs said:
Well we can all convince ourselves of one reason or another why one law or another doesn't apply to us... Hence my original question - what does this even mean?
He's not saying it doesn't apply, just that in making the choice he doesn't regard it as important. Just like every other drug user in existence.Drug laws are demonstrably failing, and have been for decades as the previous poster indicates. The problem is that politicians are too tied up in anti-drug rhetoric to admit and deal with it in any meaningful way.
It's similar to speeding. Everyone knows the law, millions are happy to take the risk breaking it. This site is full of stats and examples as to why the law should be changed (i.e. limits increased), politicians do nothing.
Basically we have too many laws. And pointless ones with relatively low punishments for 'crimes' which generally only affect the individual should be first to go.
FredClogs said:
Einion Yrth said:
FredClogs said:
Your body does not belong to you - it belongs to us all...
You really are a massive pillock, aren't you.As the poster above hints - why do you think suicide is illegal?
NerveAgent said:
FredClogs said:
That's the way it is... If you want to live in a civilised culture with some resemblance of a controlled future and foreseeable outcomes, if you want armies of soldiers who are prepared to put their bodies on the line for the protection of it and Doctors and Nurses who are prepared to dedicate their lives to saving your flesh bag then you have to accept the covenant, don't like it then move to Central Africa - no one there is going to give two sts what you do with your body or what they do with it either!
Presumably you extend this to other things that are potentially dangerous and/or could put people out? Most forms of travel, most foods, most sporting activities etc. Or do you juat pick at your convenience? ts what you do with your body or what they do with it either!FredClogs said:
I don't know why this is about me all of a sudden, it's not, I don't even strongly disagree with legalising cannabis, I'm just trying to explain to people the way it is... People cried personal sovereignty nonsense when they introduced crash helmet law and seat belts, it took 10 years and lots of very narrowly won debate in parliament to get seat belt law passed - it seems ridiculous now... The reality of the law and the way our society and culture works is that you are not the owner of your flesh bag - it seems to me that it's the people who want to liberalise drug laws that seem to be cherry picking the argument - not me.
Its different, a flesh bag travelling at 70mph is a danger to others and if I liked not wearing a helmet id probably argue for that...difficult to tax though...FredClogs said:
I don't know why this is about me all of a sudden, it's not, I don't even strongly disagree with legalising cannabis, I'm just trying to explain to people the way it is... People cried personal sovereignty nonsense when they introduced crash helmet law and seat belts, it took 10 years and lots of very narrowly won debate in parliament to get seat belt law passed - it seems ridiculous now... The reality of the law and the way our society and culture works is that you are not the owner of your flesh bag - it seems to me that it's the people who want to liberalise drug laws that seem to be cherry picking the argument - not me.
Rookie mistake on this one. Big failing in your logic.You're not allowed to be under the influence of drugs when in control of a vehicle and on public roads, either, including legal ones like alcohol. Similarly, you can't smoke indoors in public places. Drive a motorbike in your garden and you can choose not to wear a helmet. It's just a case of "my road, my rules" which is absolutely fair enough.
BJG1 said:
Rookie mistake on this one. Big failing in your logic.
You're not allowed to be under the influence of drugs when in control of a vehicle and on public roads, either, including legal ones like alcohol. Similarly, you can't smoke indoors in public places. Drive a motorbike in your garden and you can choose not to wear a helmet. It's just a case of "my road, my rules" which is absolutely fair enough.
Crash helmet law was not brought in because the state was saying "our road our rules" it was brought in to reduce the number of deaths and horrific and costly injuries that society was and was projected to suffer. You are not at liberty to do whatever you like in your back garden! It's a preposterous argument that stable and civil society (which I would hope we all aspire to live in) can work along side complete libertarian values like the idea that it's my brain/body/consciousness I can do what I like with it - even knowing that my actions are detrimental to the greater social good (I'm not arguing cannabis use is - it might be it might not)You're not allowed to be under the influence of drugs when in control of a vehicle and on public roads, either, including legal ones like alcohol. Similarly, you can't smoke indoors in public places. Drive a motorbike in your garden and you can choose not to wear a helmet. It's just a case of "my road, my rules" which is absolutely fair enough.
The country, perhaps, with the greatest ideals of liberty, the USA has the death penalty and almost universal support of it - you couldn't find a greater imposition of the state on ones own flesh bag than the legal and ceremonial destruction at the will of the "state".
Like I said, if you truly want to practice your supposed freedoms then go and do it where other people are truly free to practice theirs - see how you like it!
There aren't any countries in which drugs are legal, so I don't know where you'd like me to go? If you mean countries where there's lawlessness, I'm sure you're aware how stupid your argument is.
Forcing people to wear a helmet is an effective way of reducing the number of road deaths, you are right. Do you know what an effective way of reducing drug deaths is? Hint, it isn't continuing with a prohibitionist policy that not only ensures more users die as a result of putting unregulated substances into their body but also causes the deaths of 100s of 1000s of people in 3rd world and developing countries working in its production and supply.
Forcing people to wear a helmet is an effective way of reducing the number of road deaths, you are right. Do you know what an effective way of reducing drug deaths is? Hint, it isn't continuing with a prohibitionist policy that not only ensures more users die as a result of putting unregulated substances into their body but also causes the deaths of 100s of 1000s of people in 3rd world and developing countries working in its production and supply.
Short sighted government; many of my old school friends are long term users (8+years) and of those I still speak too all manage to hold down decent jobs, drive nice cars, lead a decent lifestyle but enjoy Cannabis whether its in the week or at the weekend - none are mentalists nor turned to Heroin because its a 'gate way' drug.
Why isn't Alcohol or Tobacco banned or maybe Cocodamol all have the potential to be abused and therefore could be gateway drugs.
Its the same with anything, the end user needs to be responsible enough to NOT abuse the substance, to understand the severity of abuse and the potential impact on you / your family / others of that abuse.
It will happen eventually, a question of when not if.
Why isn't Alcohol or Tobacco banned or maybe Cocodamol all have the potential to be abused and therefore could be gateway drugs.
Its the same with anything, the end user needs to be responsible enough to NOT abuse the substance, to understand the severity of abuse and the potential impact on you / your family / others of that abuse.
It will happen eventually, a question of when not if.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff