Guest stone win Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 I did giggle there arnold, points taken.....however if say I didn't realy wish for votes, as I belive as a species, we should be intelligent enought to want Legalistion.(difficult to trust mankind)..However to get the point across, quickly and effectually, I am going to ask the LCA, especially as they have got an Advert to go on television(the drug of the nation) to explain why is nothing to do with cannabis.... Is that better angle on the campaign, cause this site, really has ago at that crud and this is why its so good!! winstoned to all genders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MU Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Do you think your points are worth it fella. all I hear there is the wimpering of a child having tantrums ........take care winstone 307350[/snapback] of all people, abs definitely doesnt need anyone sticking up for HER, but you are way off mark with this comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Just to deviate back to the topic for a minute... I've just been reading through the Lib Dems drugs policy proposals from a link Sibannac posted in another thread and noticed this... 3.1.5 There is a logical argument for legalisation of the supply chain for cannabis. But current international legal obligations make this impossible. We therefore propose that, unless and until there is international agreement to change the UN conventions, we go no further. Does this mean that should the government legalise cannabis, it could not be sold over the counter as a pack of, say, 'Marleys' as this would contravene international law? I'm sure i remember reading that even in Holland the growers that supply the coffee shops are breaking the law. If this is the case then the government is probably already receiving as much from cannabis under current legislation (VAT and income tax from headshops and growshops) as it would if it was legalised; you could grow your own but any kind of 'supply chain' would remain illegal. I'm all for keeping the UN conventions in place if we ever get it legalised - keep capitalism well away from cannabis! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shug Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 I'm all for keeping the UN conventions in place if we ever get it legalised - keep capitalism well away from cannabis! 307623[/snapback] The particular UN conventions in question have nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with prohibition. If you think that supply of cannabis, and 'drugs' in general, should be left in the hands of criminals then thats what the UN conventions do - impose a stupid unworkable law which profits criminals, law enforcement, and money launderers. IMO we should opt out, PDQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stone win Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 of all people, abs definitely doesnt need anyone sticking up for HER, but you are way off mark with this comment didn't think she did need anyone standing up for her, but untill then I was unsure of the sex.....as not too revealing, just was getting peeved with the way ab1 was attacking justagirl,as most of you do on the site..... Yet I know justagirl personally, and the work and effort , that she does in one day to help the campaign is a lot more than most people genearally do...... so I felt that this was open for a discussion, yet we've resorted to glib remarks, of which I am also guilty, therefor to try to get on a platform of why the government won't take our money? and the refusal to do anything allows on the streets, and labels decent informed adults, as criminals , if we take cannabis.... I don't care what party gets in, just whoever does stop all the bovine crap but this issue is based on common sence, Is it so common? winstoned and exhauseted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 The particular UN conventions in question have nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with prohibition. If you think that supply of cannabis, and 'drugs' in general, should be left in the hands of criminals then thats what the UN conventions do - impose a stupid unworkable law which profits criminals, law enforcement, and money launderers. IMO we should opt out, PDQ. 307660[/snapback] Fair enough, that was a bit of a throw-away remark, but what about the rest of it? Am i right in thinking that regardless of its legal classification in this country, its sale could not be controlled and regulated properly without international consent (which i'm guessing means getting the US on side )? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Layne Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Yet I know justagirl personally, and the work and effort , that she does in one day to help the campaign is a lot more than most people genearally do...... Oh winston, keep it to the arguments. Neither you nor Jag have a clue what others round here do, day in, day out, now do you? So that was a silly remark that has just aggrevated some folks even more.... And no-one here has launched any sort of attack on Justagirl.. Goodness sake man, if we disagree we are guilty of all sorts with you peeps it seems lol BOO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stone win Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Arnold, ty for your advice....... ......I see you making a great contribution, that is giving us answers, ........winstoned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bish Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Arnold, ty for your advice....... ......I see you making a great contribution, that is giving us answers, ........winstoned 307707[/snapback] Where's your contribution to the debate then whim stone? Did the dog eat it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stone win Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Where's your contribution to the debate then whim stone? Bish , do I have to keep saying the same point legalise cannabis.........now I am doing my little bit by standing in wales, And others on here who are not afraid to stand up and be counted, yet why all the questioning and debate, I want it legalised so that you , me , adstact, anyone who chooses can use it, however a lot of dealers don't want it legalised or the money will drop out of it, is this what I am up against on this site? just wondering? winstone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shug Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 Fair enough, that was a bit of a throw-away remark, but what about the rest of it?Am i right in thinking that regardless of its legal classification in this country, its sale could not be controlled and regulated properly without international consent (which i'm guessing means getting the US on side )? 307675[/snapback] It comes down to definition. If Clinton can be telling the truth by saying he did not have 'sexual relations' with Monica, then I can redefine the UN Convention to give us permision. What you originally said was: Does this mean that should the government legalise cannabis, it could not be sold over the counter as a pack of, say, 'Marleys' as this would contravene international law? I'm sure i remember reading that even in Holland the growers that supply the coffee shops are breaking the law. And the answer to that is that the govt couldn't legalise it in any way shape or form without breaching the US, err I mean UN Conventions Not the way they define the Convention anyway. Some people see ways around it, but the easiest way IMO is to withdraw our agreement. Room for Manoeuvre - Research into national drug laws and their relation to 3 international drugs convention The Single Convention And Drug Policy Reform - "Regulating Cannabis" Conference, London I've read other essays on the UN Conventions but don't have URLs to hand. Probably http://www.druglibrary.org or on the server next to this one - http://www.drugtext.org or both. There are plenty other papers worth looking at or bookmarking for future reference on: www.ukcia.org/research/researchsearch.php?category=Law+and+policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stone win Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 You really are a complete prick. you are getting better on the debate m8,,,,,,winstoned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Layne Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 So now, those who disagree are obviously heavyweight dealers trying to rock your boat? Good grief man, get a grip! Good luck in Wales...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stone win Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 So now, those who disagree are obviously heavyweight dealers trying to rock your boat? Good grief man, get a grip! one reason not to agree with the lca i'd say? thanks for the tuition Arnold, don't know if I'm learning yet!!! but the world loves a trier, and I am trying,,,,,,,,,yes open to laughter,,,,another good medicine as well as the herb.... winstone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 And the answer to that is that the govt couldn't legalise it in any way shape or form without breaching the US, err I mean UN Conventions wink.gif Not the way they define the Convention anyway. That's what i wanted to know! Thanks for this links, i'll have a browse through them later on tonight Some people see ways around it, but the easiest way IMO is to withdraw our agreement. I'll have a look around to see if i can find out what the implications of such a withdrawal would be. You can bet the US wouldn't take it lightly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts