Massachusetts decriminalizes cannabis

[cyberianpan]

A thing which seems to have been overlooked on election night is that Massachusetts decriminalized cannabis. Other states have done something like this in the past but as far as I know it has always been for "medical use".

Also there was a bi-partisan congressional initiative launched in July this year to decriminalize cannabis .

How come the US is so far ahead of Ireland here ? I appreciate some of the rural conservatives in Ireland wouldn't want it legalised but perhaps it could be in Dublin.

Anyhow the main issue is: is the US now en route to decriminalizing cannabis ?

cYp

[Boggle]

Maybe they figured out that a) they cannot stop it, b) it has never killed anyone and c) they can make a fortune in tax from it.

We should decriminalise it here too and sort out our public finances - wonder how much we could make from VAT and from extra tourism?? (insert smiley face)

If you can't beat them....

[jcdf]

A step in the wrong direction as far as I am concerned.

[Boggle]

Why do you say that?

[Kiss]

Think of all the time and money wasted enforcing these laws. Why should my tax money be used spend, some like €150k a year to keep these people in jail?

Take the profits away the gangs I say. But should be heavily regulated. Only traceable "packets" of weed should be used. And only particular strands on weed.

(Dont let people know, I'm sometimes liberal).

[markeys]

A step in the wrong direction as far as I am concerned.

I agree.

Overall I can see why people would want hash legalised - but I think the health risks of using it make a valid case for banning it.

I'm probably 51% to 49% in favour of keeping it banned.

If smokers had known before cigarettes were introduced the cancer that would result, they'd have voted to ban them too IMO.

**can -open -worms **

[Boggle]

Comparing hash to fags is pretty much like comparing sweets to heroine.

Fags are extremely addictive and kill a high percentage of people. Hash is not addictive and has never killed a single person - not to say that there aren't other risks but these are minute.

Put it this way - I've enjoyed the odd joint for 10+ years with no negative effects. In that same time I've been in hospital 3 times for football injuries (ankle(bad), knee and stitches). Which is more dangerous?

[20000miles]

The entire point rests on individual self sovereignty. Either you choose what you eat, drink and ingest or that decision is subjugated to someone else, who thereby gains a higher claim to your body than you!

You own your body and can do as you please to it - that includes suicide by any possible means.


Also, it should be noted that in the private sector the incentives are geared towards abstaining from drug use. Turn up high to work and Im sure any of the willing candidates for your job will be glad to take it off your hands.


And no jcdf, Im not planning on going into the drug business anytime soon

[Kiss]

I agree.

Overall I can see why people would want hash legalised - but I think the health risks of using it make a valid case for banning it.

I'm probably 51% to 49% in favour of keeping it banned.

If smokers had known before cigarettes were introduced the cancer that would result, they'd have voted to ban them too IMO.

**can -open -worms **

What about burnt toast? Should we ban that too? I see keeping weed illegal as being too much into nanny state politics.

[Colada]

Anybody hear the guy from the Dublin 'headshop' on Joe Duffy yesterday?
Haven't laughed so hard at a radio show in years.
He wiped the floor with Duffy and ran rings round the outraged citizens.

Don't take that as an endorsement by the way - but it was funny to hear a 'poyhead' making more sense than Joe.