 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 09:28:50 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I have followed that with interest. Here (NL) we have been discussing
> for decades whether weed should be legalised or not (while the rest of
> Europe looked on with disapproving eyes about our semi-liberal and not
> too successful experiments about it) without coming to a decision. In
> the meantime, weed has been grown into something closer to a hard drug,
> and one might seriously reconsider the initial question yet again.
It's kinda a weird situation in the US, because it's legal in the state,
but illegal under federal law. That means that a lot of dispensaries are
cash-only businesses because the banks don't want to risk a federal suit
for trafficking "drug money".
But most in the US these days see weed as no more harmful than alcohol or
cigarettes (and some say less so), which does beg the question of why
there's a double standard about it.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: A Matter of Political Incorrectness
Date: 10 Mar 2016 03:14:36
Message: <56e12cec@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-3-2016 1:03, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 09:28:50 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> I have followed that with interest. Here (NL) we have been discussing
>> for decades whether weed should be legalised or not (while the rest of
>> Europe looked on with disapproving eyes about our semi-liberal and not
>> too successful experiments about it) without coming to a decision. In
>> the meantime, weed has been grown into something closer to a hard drug,
>> and one might seriously reconsider the initial question yet again.
>
> It's kinda a weird situation in the US, because it's legal in the state,
> but illegal under federal law. That means that a lot of dispensaries are
> cash-only businesses because the banks don't want to risk a federal suit
> for trafficking "drug money".
>
> But most in the US these days see weed as no more harmful than alcohol or
> cigarettes (and some say less so), which does beg the question of why
> there's a double standard about it.
>
The difficulty seems to be the impossibility to really pull weed out of
the criminal circuit. That is where most of the efforts fail in the end.
Politicians hardly want to burn their fingers on the issue and - not
irrelevant - the strength and resilience of the 'under'-world is a fair
match to the 'upper'-world.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/10/2016 8:14 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> The difficulty seems to be the impossibility to really pull weed out of
> the criminal circuit. That is where most of the efforts fail in the end.
Maybe impossible is not the right word. Legalising the herb would
automatically do that. Okay that is a simplification and a lot of
criminals would still be involved at the start as they have the networks.
> Politicians hardly want to burn their fingers on the issue and - not
> irrelevant
There is a lot of truth in that. They do not want to be seen to legalise
a substance that they have been decrying for decades. I believe that
there are several international treaties controlling the use of drugs
and they would need to be revoked in case the wrath of the UN comes down
on them.
> - the strength and resilience of the 'under'-world is a fair
> match to the 'upper'-world.
Indeed it is.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-3-2016 11:59, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/10/2016 8:14 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>> The difficulty seems to be the impossibility to really pull weed out of
>> the criminal circuit. That is where most of the efforts fail in the end.
>
> Maybe impossible is not the right word. Legalising the herb would
> automatically do that. Okay that is a simplification and a lot of
> criminals would still be involved at the start as they have the networks.
Indeed. Legalising would have to be total /and/ everywhere, otherwise
legal stuff will be hijacked towards non-legalised regions.
>
>> Politicians hardly want to burn their fingers on the issue and - not
>> irrelevant
>
> There is a lot of truth in that. They do not want to be seen to legalise
> a substance that they have been decrying for decades. I believe that
> there are several international treaties controlling the use of drugs
> and they would need to be revoked in case the wrath of the UN comes down
> on them.
I suppose international treaties are a major stumbling block, and then
we are only talking about weed: the whole business of xtc and party
drugs is yet another kettle of fish. All quite established in the main
stream society today, yet hardly controlled or illegal-proof.
>
>
>> - the strength and resilience of the 'under'-world is a fair
>> match to the 'upper'-world.
>
> Indeed it is.
>
Unfortunately, and far from the awareness of the average citizen.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:14:16 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 10-3-2016 1:03, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 09:28:50 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>> I have followed that with interest. Here (NL) we have been discussing
>>> for decades whether weed should be legalised or not (while the rest of
>>> Europe looked on with disapproving eyes about our semi-liberal and not
>>> too successful experiments about it) without coming to a decision. In
>>> the meantime, weed has been grown into something closer to a hard
>>> drug,
>>> and one might seriously reconsider the initial question yet again.
>>
>> It's kinda a weird situation in the US, because it's legal in the
>> state, but illegal under federal law. That means that a lot of
>> dispensaries are cash-only businesses because the banks don't want to
>> risk a federal suit for trafficking "drug money".
>>
>> But most in the US these days see weed as no more harmful than alcohol
>> or cigarettes (and some say less so), which does beg the question of
>> why there's a double standard about it.
>>
>>
> The difficulty seems to be the impossibility to really pull weed out of
> the criminal circuit. That is where most of the efforts fail in the end.
> Politicians hardly want to burn their fingers on the issue and - not
> irrelevant - the strength and resilience of the 'under'-world is a fair
> match to the 'upper'-world.
Quite possibly. There's a stigma for pot users that somehow people who
drink alcohol or smoke tobacco don't have (though in the US at least,
tobacco users do have more stigma now than, say, 30 years ago).
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:59:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> Politicians hardly want to burn their fingers on the issue and - not
>> irrelevant
>
> There is a lot of truth in that. They do not want to be seen to legalise
> a substance that they have been decrying for decades. I believe that
> there are several international treaties controlling the use of drugs
> and they would need to be revoked in case the wrath of the UN comes down
> on them.
The same is true for legal pharmaceuticals here in the US as well. The
FDA won't approve foreign drugs for use in the US, which really causes us
problems with drug prices.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/10/2016 10:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:59:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Politicians hardly want to burn their fingers on the issue and - not
>>> irrelevant
>>
>> There is a lot of truth in that. They do not want to be seen to legalise
>> a substance that they have been decrying for decades. I believe that
>> there are several international treaties controlling the use of drugs
>> and they would need to be revoked in case the wrath of the UN comes down
>> on them.
>
> The same is true for legal pharmaceuticals here in the US as well. The
> FDA won't approve foreign drugs for use in the US, which really causes us
> problems with drug prices.
>
You are closer to Canada then you were. So that shouldn't be a problem
for you. ;)
Seriously, you would think that someone had manufactured the system to
maximise the profit.
I think we are back to:
On 3/10/2016 12:26 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> - the strength and resilience of the 'under'-world is a fair
> match to the 'upper'-world.
;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: A Matter of Political Incorrectness
Date: 10 Mar 2016 19:17:54
Message: <56e20eb2@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:08:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/10/2016 10:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:59:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> Politicians hardly want to burn their fingers on the issue and - not
>>>> irrelevant
>>>
>>> There is a lot of truth in that. They do not want to be seen to
>>> legalise a substance that they have been decrying for decades. I
>>> believe that there are several international treaties controlling the
>>> use of drugs and they would need to be revoked in case the wrath of
>>> the UN comes down on them.
>>
>> The same is true for legal pharmaceuticals here in the US as well. The
>> FDA won't approve foreign drugs for use in the US, which really causes
>> us problems with drug prices.
>>
>>
> You are closer to Canada then you were. So that shouldn't be a problem
> for you. ;)
>
> Seriously, you would think that someone had manufactured the system to
> maximise the profit.
>
> I think we are back to:
>
> On 3/10/2016 12:26 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > - the strength and resilience of the 'under'-world is a fair match to
> > the 'upper'-world.
>
> ;-)
That was precisely my thought (the latter, not the former ;) )
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/10/2016 10:46 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Quite possibly. There's a stigma for pot users that somehow people who
> drink alcohol or smoke tobacco don't have (though in the US at least,
> tobacco users do have more stigma now than, say, 30 years ago).
That view seems to have gone here. It is so common place. It might be
just the people I meet. There is a lot more tolerance than there was
when I was the age to smoke it.
Or maybe it's because I live in London - Sin City.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2016 12:17 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> That was precisely my thought (the latter, not the former;) )
True and you must be rich or have good medical insurance. It seems to me
that the Pharmas charge as much as the market will bear.
There is a lot of grumbling on this side of the pond at the moment. With
drug treatments being not cost effective. So patients die and companies
prosper.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
