On 16 Jul 2002 at 9:44, kharin wrote:
> If you legalise it, you control it, you take it from the criminals.
>
> I'm not entirely persuaded. Consider the Dutch example; sale of
> cannabis in licensed cafes is intended to also confine usage to said
> cafes.
The Dutch have not fully legalised cannabis, it is decriminalised in
certain zones. This is why the dealers still persist. If cannabis was
fully legalised like alcohol, the dealers would have no room. How
much illegal alcohol dealing do you see in this country? Very little. It
would be the same with any other drug.
> "Because you are exchanging a punative and retributive system
> of "justice" with one concerned with individualised help/advice."
>
> I would certainly not agree that moving towards a more therapeutic
> approach is anything but an advance, but I think I feel a bit more
> sympathetic to the point in question than you seem to.
What you say here is good. It probably isn't an advance at all, but
perhaps even a more "authoritative", moralising and invasive form
of policing.
> "So? for some it isn't."
>
> A very different issue than the main cut and thrust of the debate.
> While my instinct is very much to shun the tedious pharmo-mystics I
> suspect that a choice in the matter might not be on offer, anymore
> than it would be from the Jehovah's Witnesses.
You can close the door on the JWs just as you can the pharmo-
mystics.
I'm also unsure as to have far you can dismiss pharmo-mystics.
What is a legitimate form of spirituality? Is anyone who uses a drug
as part of this someone to dismiss? As usual, belief must be
examined more closely and not dismissed just because someone is
taking something you aren't.
What are the limits to the right to inform oneself, choose for oneself,
damage oneself, believe what you want?
At what point can you, I or the state step in and say "no/wrong"?
Walpurgis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.walpurg.iwarp.com
Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the government police
and other authorities can, with out a court order, demand that phone
companies, internet service providers and postal operators hand over
detailed information on individuals such as their name and address, phone
calls made and received, source and destination of emails, the identity of
websites visited and mobile phone location data, which is capable of
revealing the user's whereabouts at any given time and is accurate to
within a few hundred metres.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,7369,731074,00.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:15 MDT