Rayman Pirate-Community

The problem can be traced back to one simple economic rule : when there's question, there will be availability. Currently, you can buy drugs through the underground, but that's a really big problem : you don't know what your taking ( it may be washing pouder instead of drugs, with drugs in pouder, for example, and i think we all know how good washing pouder is for you ), you pay too much for your drugs, you're keeping the underground alive, you're ruining ( no taxes ) the economy of your country, and because you can take it in anywhere you want you might be a danger to other people.

But the government can regain this lost money by appropriately charging weed-smokers. Any excess money gathered here can be spent on practically reducing the drugs problem (which is still an economic and social issue), through program courses, helplines etc.

Applying an age limit seems really pointless because the stereotypical weed-smoker won't give a monkeys about age limits. Just take a look at this socially fallen country and you'll see what I mean.

Weed is pointless and should be illegalized everywhere.

But the government can regain this lost money by appropriately charging weed-smokers. Any excess money gathered here can be spent on practically reducing the drugs problem (which is still an economic and social issue), through program courses, helplines etc.

Applying an age limit seems really pointless because the stereotypical weed-smoker won't give a monkeys about age limits. Just take a look at this socially fallen country and you'll see what I mean.

Actually, they can't. How does the government know I'm a weed smoker if i do it in my home outside of school/work ?

And if they sell it themselves they can surely tax it, and with that money they can work on important things.

I'm afraid that an age limit won't help too, because if child wants d rugs, there's surely going to be an underground supplier if there where to be an age limit.

@ To be fair, yes tobacco does kill more people, but dying of weed use is still possible. I once read an account where a teen boy go so addicted to it that he killed himself when he ran out of weed and also money for it. But that's one weed kill compared to 2000 UK tobacco deaths, I think, a week?

Every dead is one to many. It doesn't matter if 20 people die of tobacco, and 5 die of drugs, they still died and that's a bad thing for the economy, and their close ones.

Xenon wrote:But the government can regain this lost money by appropriately charging weed-smokers. Any excess money gathered here can be spent on practically reducing the drugs problem (which is still an economic and social issue), through program courses, helplines etc.

Now that was the idea behind California legalizing it. Though, I kind of fear a society like that in Seatle (people camping out in parks 24/7 wigging out because they're so high).

People can already get high with alcohol for much cheaper, so I don't think legalising weed would change anything in that regard...

Joshua822 wrote:Actually, they can't. How does the government know I'm a weed smoker if i do it in my home outside of school/work ?

Yes they can. It's called "taxation".

Joshua822 wrote:And if they sell it themselves they can surely tax it, and with that money they can work on important things.

What, does the government need to be the distributor in order to tax a product in your country?

Joshua822 wrote:I'm afraid that an age limit won't help too, because if child wants d rugs, there's surely going to be an underground supplier if there where to be an age limit.

That's ridiculous. You shouldn't get rid of an age-limit just because it's possible to circumvert it – if that was the case, why not get rid of the age-limit on tobacco and alcohol as well?

Joshua822 wrote:

@ To be fair, yes tobacco does kill more people, but dying of weed use is still possible. I once read an account where a teen boy go so addicted to it that he killed himself when he ran out of weed and also money for it. But that's one weed kill compared to 2000 UK tobacco deaths, I think, a week?

Every dead is one to many. It doesn't matter if 20 people die of tobacco, and 5 die of drugs, they still died and that's a bad thing for the economy, and their close ones.

It troubles me that you thought of the economic effect of a person's death before the personal one. Also, it should be noted that that boy was not killed by the drug, but by himself. I don't think anyone has ever died as an actual result of smoking weed.

Maybe not but it's possible to get hospitalised from it.

@ Joshua: Do you honestly think a government should act as the prime supplier of such drugs? Do you seriously believe this would be a better alternative to simply illegalising the substance? Your argument against drug monitoring pretty much counters this suggestion anyway.

I don't think weed should be legalized. It should only be taken if it's prescribed from a doctor to someone who needs it fro health reasons.

Other than that, it's useless and counter-productive.

EDIT: I think people marry because they love each other. Hopefully that's why.

Hunchman801 wrote:People can already get high with alcohol for much cheaper, so I don't think legalising weed would change anything in that regard...

That may be true, but, and I will admit I'm no expert in terms of cannabis, but I figure there's at least a point with alcohol and pain killers where you can say, "Well, I'm going to stop because if I have any more, I'm going to go nuts."

Though, maybe, for the sake of my argument, I could say that maybe alocohol, painkillers, weed, and all other drug substances should just be illegalized and we should just have to deal with pain and our own emotions because humans generally have no self-control.

Or maybe, sure, let them. That only means that I get to have a spot for a job, like how I did previously, because the lady I replaced got drunk and chose to destroy my boss' car. Then I can wave my money around and say I actually did something with my life rather than spend my hours fruitlessly sitting outside smoking a joint or camping on a porche drinking beer.

I guess my bottom line is that, I fear living in a society where delusioning ourselves into thinking the world is any different of a place to make it "bearable" is considered "okay."

Only things I can probably take by myself are aspirins but they don't really do jack shit and I can't take paracetamol because I'm allergic. So when I'm in some kind of pain [period, hip, knee or whatev though headaches I can use that 4head stuff for] I just suffer them.

You guys in the UK ever watch Jeremy Kyle and see how nearly every young guy on there that's calling for paternity tests are jobless potheads? Just LOL man.

Phoenixan wrote: That may be true, but, and I will admit I'm no expert in terms of cannabis, but I figure there's at least a point with alcohol and pain killers where you can say, "Well, I'm going to stop because if I have any more, I'm going to go nuts."

Apparently alcohol is more addicitve than weed, so that's not the case. Dunno about painkillers, though.

As I said, I have very little faith in humans' self-control. I can certainly stop after one beer, and in fact, I could very easily not drink at all because to me, it's simply a matter of tasting something rather than fully experiencing its effects (I do indeed love the taste of a coffee with Baileys). If so much of the population can't control themselves, then maybe we should just outlaw all drugs all together.

There are painkillers like oxycotton which I keep hearing is very addictive. I actually opted out of filling my prescription for it twice though (after both oral surgeries) because I took a couple of ibuprofin tablets and felt fine, and I never quite understood why I would need something so strong.

Oh, and editing this quickly on an offnote, but I suppose one could say that caffeine is more addictive than weed or whatever as well, since there is such a thing as a caffeine withdrawl (headaches). I've had times where I've grown sick of having coffee in the morning, so I should know. But again, coffee is also a taste experience to me rather than a "I MUST STAY AWAKE!" kind of suppliment, so whenever I feel I don't want it, I just don't for a little while.

You can stop drinking coffee just like that? I'm addicted to caffeine myself, and I get headaches and stuff if I go about 24 hours without having any coffee or tea.

So am I (addicted to tea, but I don't drink coffee). The biscuits make it worth it though.

Ahaha. Yeah, nothing really does beat having tea and biscuits. Coffee and donuts are overrated.

Tobbe wrote:You can stop drinking coffee just like that? I'm addicted to caffeine myself, and I get headaches and stuff if I go about 24 hours without having any coffee or tea.

Yep. I actually do get mild headaches, but it usually stops after about 3 hours. Though oddly enough, people actually do tell me that I seem to have a slight personality change when I don't drink coffee for about 3 months. Like I'm told that I'm actually more cold, or selfish, or whatever. But I'm mildly autistic (I have OCD), so I actually figure that's just the way I really am.

My mum's on some pretty strong painkillers and she's trying to come off of them.

Meh I only have coffee once in a blue moon but I'm a chocoholic!

Dark chocolate's actually good for you though.

Chocolate digestives with tea are the best.

Acarr wrote:Chocolate digestives with tea are the best.

I used to have chocolate digestives with my tea all the time – then I started eating normal digestives instead. Unlike the chocolate ones, normal ones actually taste good without having to be dipped in tea first. But they're so dry... though their dryness can be overcome by washing them down with more tea...

I currently have gingernut biscuits with my tea. I'll switch back to digestives when I get tired of them.