Comments on: Comments on 6086

Post number 6086

Postroad — Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:19:10 -0800

Belgium agrees to legalize pot Will this change in the legalization of pot change in our country too some 75 years from now?

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:23:02 -0800

75?! My estimation is 15-20 years there will be widespread legalization for medicinal use, and soon thereafter broad decriminalization.

By: ewwgene

ewwgene — Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:23:23 -0800

Damn. I'll be dead in 75 years. :|

By: tiaka

tiaka — Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:44:35 -0800

legalization is really the answer? I've read somewhere that the places that did legalize turned into hell holes and drug use went up. True? False? I guess drugs are easy to get these days anyway.

By: cCranium

cCranium — Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:57:05 -0800

I think based on the fact that Belgium's follow the lead of the Netherlands indicates that it's been a reasonable success in the Netherlands. The law also allows the cultivation of marijuana plants for personal use. This, I think, is the most important aspect of the law. Keep a crime to sell it, that's fine, but let me tend my garden.

By: cfj

cfj — Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:16:19 -0800

if you go to the netherlands you'll quickly discover that it's anything but a hell hole. that's just more war-on-drugs propaganda; don't buy it.

By: terrapin

terrapin — Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:18:14 -0800

Hear hear, cC!! If people were allowed to grow for personal use the criminal element would disappear.

By: cCranium

cCranium — Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:03:05 -0800

terrapin: Well, probably not. I'd be willing to bet that there'd still be a lot of teens looking to purchase rather than bumpin' mom and/or dad's tomatos out of the garden. But it would seriously cut back the demand, and therefore the criminal element, I agree.

By: Loudmax

Loudmax — Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:20:30 -0800

Aw, why didn't they legalize pot when I lived in Belgium. It's not fair. (Then again, I was six years old when I lived in Belgium...) A 15-20 year timetable for legalization in the US sounds reasonable, but reason doesn't have much of a part to play in the drug war. My guess is that it will be legal in Canada and the rest of Europe long before it's legal in the U.S.

By: Zool

Zool — Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:18:25 -0800

A step in the right direction. Is it just me or are most countries pushing cigarettes towards illegality, or just making it damn expensive?

By: holgate

holgate — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:02:04 -0800

I've read somewhere that the places that did legalize turned into hell holes and drug use went up. Was that little Tucker Carlson, by any chance? I caught him talking about the Vietnam on Drugs before leaving the US, and he described a "filthy" Amsterdam unrecognisible from my time working there. Anyway, there was the famous case of Zurich's "Needle Park" in the early 90s, which didn't work. But that was for heroin, not soft drugs. And as the link suggests, the alternative solution adopted by the Swiss -- carefully controlled and supervised heroin prescription -- seems to have offset the social problems of addiction, and provided useful evidence on a subject that's usually hard to study scientifically. In the US, the tide on drug use is already turning, I think. At least, that's what I suspect from the "...or any symptoms where cannabis may be useful" adverts in the SF press for medicinal prescription. But it'll take a few more lurches towards modernity -- for instance, a sensible drinking age that doesn't criminalise college students -- before that happens.

By: dagnyscott

dagnyscott — Thu, 01 Mar 2001 06:22:17 -0800

Was that little Tucker Carlson, by any chance? I caught him talking about the Vietnam on Drugs before leaving the US, and he described a "filthy" Amsterdam unrecognisible from my time working there. His big kick now is free heroin in Zurich, which he has proceeded to take entirely out of context. Gov. Gary Johnson was on their program, and he mentioned a program in Zurich that gave people who were already heroin addicts prescriptions to get, well, free heroin. Which caused crime to go down quite a bit, because these people weren't robbing people and so on to get their heroin. Carlson's response was something like "You seem like a libertarian. You can't like the government giving out heroin..." Which makes no sense, since Johnson is 1.) not a libertarian and 2.) even though many of his positions are libertarian, they don't all have to be. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.