Mr Smith goes to washington

[-Xs-]

Marijuana decriminalised in Washington state

Possession of marijuana is poised to become legal in the US state of Washington, a month after voters opted for decriminalisation.

From midnight (08:00 GMT) anyone aged 21 and over will be allowed to carry up to 1oz (28.4g) of cannabis, but smoking it in public will remain illegal.

It has been legal for medical use in the state since 1998.

Washington and Colorado both voted to decriminalise the drug, which remains illegal under US federal law.

However, there will also be nowhere to legally purchase marijuana in the state for at least another year,

It also remains unclear how federal law enforcement agencies will deal with liberalisation of drug laws in Washington and - eventually - Colorado.

Federal

Any decision to crack down on states with liberal drug laws could affect Washington's plans to raise tax revenues from a licensed and controlled marijuana market.

"We're in uncharted water here," Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes said at a press conference on Wednesday.

"We've struggled with prohibition for a century," Mr Holmes said, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

"It's going to take some time to substitute a state licensed and regulated system."

Backers of the Washington law insist it does not encourage or require anyone to break federal law.

But a regional federal prosecutor in the state, Jenny Durkan, rold the Post-Intelligencer that "growing, selling or possessing any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law," no matter what state law comes into effect in Washington.

The drug remained in the same category as cocaine, heroine and methamphetamine, she said, adding that only Congress could change that designation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20621210

Be interesting what effect, if any, this will have on further legislation around possession and use, considering a lot of laws globally regarding the ol' mary jane has been influenced from the US, and whether this will flow upwards changing US laws or remain within the constraints of certain states. I don't know enough about US laws and structures to really comment though.

[Gervinho's Forehead]

Yay! loads more paranoid schizophrenic people walking around.

It's not a harmless drug like people like to preach to others that it is, the people that say it's harmless are deluded.

[Xhaka Can’t]

The stuff has got stronger, but it's still safer than badger baiting.

[Master Splinter]

Yeah, it's a great film Syn. You should definitely watch it.

[GP]

It's completely harmless.

[LDG]

Duuuude!

[GP]

Dude, what does mine say?

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeYsTmIzjkw

[Xhaka Can’t]

It's completely harmless.

I can assure you that badger baiting is very dangerous if you don't know what you're doing.

And you clearly don't.

[GP]

I can assure you that badger baiting is very dangerous if you don't know what you're doing.

And you clearly don't.

I bait badgers like a motherfucker.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

the knock on effect begins

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20648276

whilst the war on drugs is not working im not sure decriminalising is the answer.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

"In Portugal, resources are focused on drug treatment rather than law enforcement. Users of small amounts of drugs don't face a criminal penalty if they attend a "Dissuasion Commission". It establishes if the user is addicted or just casual users."

if thats the case then i think thats a good avenue to pursue. but with our culture im pretty sure people would begin binge-drugging all over the nation.

[Gervinho's Forehead]

The punishment for drugs like marijuana isn't hard enough imo., there isn't enough of a deterrent.

[PGFC]

The punishment for drugs like marijuana isn't hard enough imo., there isn't enough of a deterrent.

:good: They should be stoned.

[Niall_Quinn]

This is the trouble with government and just one of many reasons why it should be abolished. It has hoodwinked people into thinking it has some sort of a right to dictate what we can and can't do as individuals. It has no such mandate and never has. Even if 100% of the electorate attempt to give government such a mandate it still can't stand as nobody has any right whatsoever to tell another person what they may or may not do, the very notion is inconceivable to any person who understands even the very basics of liberty. The trouble is, most people don't have a clue.

As such, and as a self evident confirmation of our supposed beliefs in liberty, all drug consumption is lawful by default regardless of what government claims. They can abuse the citizen by using coercion and by pretending they have a right to dictate personal behaviour. But they are behaving in an unlawful and abusive manner when they do this and they only get away with it because the citizen has forgotten what it means to be free and independent. Of course they have a "legal" right to assume dictatorial powers provided they obtain consent. Unfortunately this is how they have managed to subvert the law, by replacing it with legislation and tricking the citizen into contractual compliance. A terrible crime on the part of government but most people are riddled by a drug of another kind, ignorance, and too fearful to demand their natural rights.

The other side of the coin is the harm that can be inflicted on third parties as a result of drug abuse. Now it certainly is lawful for the appointed government to intervene when such harm occurs. While they have no rights at all to dictate what people should do, they have every right to act when the behaviour of one individual causes harm to another. And personally I think the book should be thrown at anybody who causes harm through drug abuse.

The lawful thing then is to decriminalise not just all forms of drugs but to also define effective penalties for harm to third parties. Of course the government gets this almost completely the wrong way around. Mainly because there has never been such a thing as a competent government that adheres to the principles of liberty. All government is abusive by default, but not every person who uses drugs is evil in the manner hysterically painted by those who are so arrogant and vain and fearful they genuinely imagine they can tell others how to behave. They have a sickness that is not even diagnosed let alone treated. And I'm sure they will weigh in vociferously on this next battle between liberty and the foul smelling dog shit pushed by the ignorant, terrified and small minded control freaks.

[LDG]

This is the trouble with government and just one of many reasons why it should be abolished. It has hoodwinked people into thinking it has some sort of a right to dictate what we can and can't do as individuals. It has no such mandate and never has. Even if 100% of the electorate attempt to give government such a mandate it still can't stand as nobody has any right whatsoever to tell another person what they may or may not do, the very notion is inconceivable to any person who understands even the very basics of liberty. The trouble is, most people don't have a clue.

As such, and as a self evident confirmation of our supposed beliefs in liberty, all drug consumption is lawful by default regardless of what government claims. They can abuse the citizen by using coercion and by pretending they have a right to dictate personal behaviour. But they are behaving in an unlawful and abusive manner when they do this and they only get away with it because the citizen has forgotten what it means to be free and independent. Of course they have a "legal" right to assume dictatorial powers provided they obtain consent. Unfortunately this is how they have managed to subvert the law, by replacing it with legislation and tricking the citizen into contractual compliance. A terrible crime on the part of government but most people are riddled by a drug of another kind, ignorance, and too fearful to demand their natural rights.

The other side of the coin is the harm that can be inflicted on third parties as a result of drug abuse. Now it certainly is lawful for the appointed government to intervene when such harm occurs. While they have no rights at all to dictate what people should do, they have every right to act when the behaviour of one individual causes harm to another. And personally I think the book should be thrown at anybody who causes harm through drug abuse.

The lawful thing then is to decriminalise not just all forms of drugs but to also define effective penalties for harm to third parties. Of course the government gets this almost completely the wrong way around. Mainly because there has never been such a thing as a competent government that adheres to the principles of liberty. All government is abusive by default, but not every person who uses drugs is evil in the manner hysterically painted by those who are so arrogant and vain and fearful they genuinely imagine they can tell others how to behave. They have a sickness that is not even diagnosed let alone treated. And I'm sure they will weigh in vociferously on this next battle between liberty and the foul smelling dog shit pushed by the ignorant, terrified and small minded control freaks.

Cocaine :bow:

[Niall_Quinn]

Cocaine :bow:

Horrible and pointless drug. This is like paying money for a short term fix when you could work on a long term solution for free. Makes no sense to me.