Judge - I am the law and I'll do as I please.

[Phanerothyme 12]

I think Paul was on drugs when he wrote the Frog Chorus too - but the wrong kind.

 

If memory serves, Brady used to pop pep pills.

 

Brand name "pro-plus" - 9 out of 10 homicidal maniacs who expressed a preference said that Pro-Plus helped them stay paranoid and short tempered for longer than other leading brands of caffeine.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Phanerothyme

[Conrod 10]

For one second, imagine it was a legal mind bending drug, like alcohol for instance.

 

Imagine it's alcohol, if you still don't understand, then I think you're stretching credibility somewhat.

But the WHOLE POINT is that it's illegal.

 

None of us likes/agrees deeply and profoundly with every single law. I'd quite like it if the law allowed us to shoot trespassers, but it doesn't. I'd also like it if the road laws allowed me to cruise at 150mph down the M1 when I want to get somewhere quickly rather than 70mph - but I can't because it's illegal.

 

The Autobahns show us that you can drive safely at high speed, ergo following the 'logic' of SF's drug fans our law must be stupid, therefore I should ignore the law and drive at 150mph anyway.

 

OR - perhaps I should accept that, as a member of a society which prides itself on its democracy, I need to accept and obey the laws that the majority have decided on.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

I'd quite like it if the law allowed us to shoot trespassers

Haven't you got enough hobbies?

[TheGuy 10]

There's also nothing foolish about taking 'recreational' illegal drugs when those same drugs are proven to be less harmful than those that are legal.

 

 

 

 

That has not been proven at all.

[Phanerothyme 12]

But the WHOLE POINT is that it's illegal.

 

- perhaps I should accept that, as a member of a society which prides itself on its democracy, I need to accept and obey the laws that the majority have decided on.

 

You never break the stated speed limit then, whatever the conditions?

 

That's reassuring.

[Magilla 510]

But the WHOLE POINT is that it's illegal.

 

The point of the thread is whether the judge is being heavy handed in handing out stiff sentences for the use of an illegal drug. That in itself leads to the question of whether that drug should be illegal at all.

 

Clearly you think the judge is right and the drugs under discussion remain illegal. That's cool, but with the knowledge of another drug that most people seem to like and accept, that can have far worse consequences, I'm trying to understand why?

 

None of us likes/agrees deeply and profoundly with every single law. I'd quite like it if the law allowed us to shoot trespassers, but it doesn't. I'd also like it if the road laws allowed me to cruise at 150mph down the M1 when I want to get somewhere quickly rather than 70mph - but I can't because it's illegal.

 

We can debate whether they should be illegal, or whether sentencing of those offences is overly harsh in a thread about those subjects. Feel free to make one.

 

The Autobahns show us that you can drive safely at high speed, ergo following the 'logic' of SF's drug fans our law must be stupid, therefore I should ignore the law and drive at 150mph anyway.

 

I don't think anyone has suggested that, I certainly haven't. In every thread about drugs I've ever been involved with on this forum, I've asked and asked and asked if anyone can provide justification that doesn't involve some immotive nonsense that wouldn't also equally apply to legal drugs, I'm still waiting.

 

The issues that are unique to illegal drugs appear, as far as I'm able to tell, to be as a direct result of their illegality! I'm happy to be corrected, but as yet, it hasn't happened.

 

OR - perhaps I should accept that, as a member of a society which prides itself on its democracy, I need to accept and obey the laws that the majority have decided on.

 

Have the majority decided upon it? There's certainly never been any real debate in the last 50 years.

[discodown 11]

no one ever started on Twinings and then ended up on crack!

I'll bet they have. I'll bet almost every crack user at some point has partaken of caffine.

 

I've deliberately misquoted you because i've missed a step in the gateway drugs theory. But then again so did you. The ultimate gateway drug is alcohol. I'll be willing to bet that the vast majority of people who started smoking marijuana were alcohol drinkers beforehand and given that it was the first narcotic they used it should be banned. Would that make you happy? Its a dangerous gateway drug isn't it? Thats what you're against isn't it?

[Bonzo77 13]

But the WHOLE POINT is that it's illegal.

 

None of us likes/agrees deeply and profoundly with every single law. I'd quite like it if the law allowed us to shoot trespassers, but it doesn't. I'd also like it if the road laws allowed me to cruise at 150mph down the M1 when I want to get somewhere quickly rather than 70mph - but I can't because it's illegal.

 

The Autobahns show us that you can drive safely at high speed, ergo following the 'logic' of SF's drug fans our law must be stupid, therefore I should ignore the law and drive at 150mph anyway.

 

OR - perhaps I should accept that, as a member of a society which prides itself on its democracy, I need to accept and obey the laws that the majority have decided on.

 

You've never driven over 70 on the M1?

 

I bet if there was a campaign to up the speed limit, you'd back it!

Edited March 5, 2012 by Bonzo77

[discodown 11]

You've never driven over 70 on the M1?

 

I bet if there was a campaign to up the speed limit, you'd back it!

There is isn't there?

[barleycorn 10]

But the WHOLE POINT is that it's illegal...

 

So are you of the opinion that if something is illegal, no matter what it is then it shouldn't be done?

 

How about gay rights? Do you think it was right and proper to execute gay men up until 1861 for simply expressing their love?

 

Do you think it was right and proper to imprison gay men up until 1967 for expressing their love?

 

Do you think it was right and proper to prohibit gay men up until 1994 from expressing their love until the age of 21?

 

Do you think it was right and proper to prohibit gay men up until 1997 from expressing their love until the age of 18?

 

Given all the above things were illegal do you think it was wrong to change the law to allow gay men to express their love without fear of retribution? Do you think all gay men should have shown abstinence and waited until the law was changed in order to express their love?

 

If not why not?

 

And, if not why should the same principle not be also applied to taking cannabis or other illegal drugs?

 

jb

[Phanerothyme 12]

I'm beginning to think the reason cannabis is so popular is not for its effects, or its taste, but because its mere existence winds the squares up so much. It's almost worth keeping it illegal for that effect alone.

[Glamrocker 10]

I'm beginning to think the reason cannabis is so popular is not for its effects, or its taste, but because its mere existence winds the squares up so much. It's almost worth keeping it illegal for that effect alone.

I like it "winds the squares up" square as I recall was used to define anyone not up to date favoured use was back in the sixties and the word in that context is very rarely used these days,usually by aged hippys..well done cat glad to see youre still groovin and hip

Just as an afterthought Is Country Joe and the Fish still on your playlist..altogether.."And its 1 2 3 what are we fighting for"

Edited March 6, 2012 by Glamrocker