Aberdeen Legalise Cannabis Demo - 3rd of May 2pm at the Castlegate

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

Hey Stripey, No-one smokes Soapy anymore, gak-tastic, and it is possible to hold down a job, so none of those delightful all-dayers you mention, but I was wondering how you spent your time. To recap; its no-ones fucking business if someone wants to alter their brain chemistry, mildly in this case. 100 years of prohibition adds up to fuck all in the history of humanity, but some still think that their remit runs to the contents of an individuals consciousness. This is a disgusting concept born of authoritarianism.

[emergency72]

Actually I did. Although you can't compare being prevented from lighting up in an enclosed public space to tobacco be declared an illegal drug punishable by a two year jail sentence (soon to be 5) for merely possessing it anywhere for any reason.

My opinion of the smoking ban was there should have been exemptions and that the anti-smoking stuff is starting to way to far, did you see this idea they had

recently? Permission to smoke? That'll be 10 - Times Online

Comments about the article here LDYS View topic - Latest great idea, smokers too need a licence to buy cigs...

That's pretty funny actually...as the people I know who are dying of cancer are the sort of people who would have never bothered their arses to getting round to applying for a smoking permit....what a pity!

[Teabags]

"I don't smoke cigarettes, I just empty the tobacco out of them, mix it with manky hash (which I have no idea what it contains but heres a clue Evil Weeds - Cannabis Information - Red Eye Express - Making Soap Bar In Yorkshire), roll it up in green rizla thick enough to wipe your arse with and then smoke it without a filter, all the while desperately pretending I'm some kind of intellectual psychonaught living in haight-ashbury in the 60s in an attempt to block out the fact I actually spend all day playing xbox, eating haribo and wanking"

Or he could smoke some grass in a pipe while on his break at work.

[KimyReizeger]

Hey Stripey, No-one smokes Soapy anymore, gak-tastic, and it is possible to hold down a job, so none of those delightful all-dayers you mention, but I was wondering how you spent your time. To recap; its no-ones fucking business if someone wants to alter their brain chemistry, mildly in this case. 100 years of prohibition adds up to fuck all in the history of humanity, but some still think that their remit runs to the contents of an individuals consciousness. This is a disgusting concept born of authoritarianism.

But surely it is the governments business when they're the ones shelling out on the NHS, social security and all other financial drains that make this country a palace in comparison to most of the world. I don't agree with the notion that it's a harmless substance of which the majority of people could sustain a respectable, productive existence whilst using; it is completely unfair to generalise the entire pot-smoking community on the basis of a few more intelligent, responsible stoners.

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

But surely it is the governments business when they're the ones shelling out on the NHS, social security and all other financial drains that make this country a palace in comparison to most of the world. I don't agree with the notion that it's a harmless substance of which the majority of people could sustain a respectable, productive existence whilst using; it is completely unfair to generalise the entire pot-smoking community on the basis of a few more intelligent, responsible stoners.

I am not interested in what you believe, believe in faries at the bottom of the garden for all I care, and if your concern is for government money misspent, fine, call for a complete alcohol ban. Ultimately an individuals brain/body chemistry is for them alone to control, and is not the jurisdiction of the state*. Lets debate the use of all drugs if you wish, but as this thread is exclusively about cannabis, and your statements are false, and based on falsehood, we can safely assume you have not researched the issue. Your beliefs should not and will not affect my freedoms.

10,000 years of Cannabis use, 100 years of prohibition, I know what the score is.

*Blah Blah Heavy Machinery, Driving etc.

[shaun]

what's the likelyhood of cannabis being legalised in aberdeen?

[KimyReizeger]

I am not interested in what you believe, believe in faries at the bottom of the garden for all I care, and if your concern is for government money misspent, fine, call for a complete alcohol ban. Ultimately an individuals brain/body chemistry is for them alone to control, and is not the jurisdiction of the state*. Lets debate the use of all drugs if you wish, but as this thread is exclusively about cannabis, and your statements are false, and based on falsehood, we can safely assume you have not researched the issue. Your beliefs should not and will not affect my freedoms. .

There is nothing false about my statement. It's simply an opinion of mine that I don't think the majority of people could endure a pot-smoking existence and come out sane on the other side. Without going too far into the subject of 'what is sane', let's just call it a state of mind built up over centuries of habit, custom and tradition, an ingrained equillibium required to function in this particlar society at this particular time. THUS, maybe it would be better for me if everyone got stoned, as this situation would inevitably allow me to rise above the lot...but a nation is only the sum total of its inhabitants, and it might possibly just be necessary to protect people from harmful drugs - whether they like it or not - for the general well-being of us all.

None of us exist alone. Every person affects the rest, and its unfortunate if you feel generalised along with the majority of pot-smokers. It's quite ridiculous to believe you have the only voice over your own actions and thoughts, that you act as an individual without affecting others, and by arguing against this restriction you ultimately argue against an entire ideology, within which pot-smoking is a mere trifle.

I smoked throughout the best part of my teens, could get it whenever I wanted, was caught in possession twice yet never charged. What exactly is the problem?

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

As a Libertarian Socialist I am quite aware of my responsibilities towards society thank you very much, and your comments on 'feeling generalised' are about as wide of the mark as is possible. As a Libertarian I agree with the concept of Cognitive Liberty Cognitive liberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in regards to the socio-cultural framework of humanity. As a socialist I do not adhere to the theory that the economy should be free and unregulated, but that is another issue.

As for the issue of falsehood, I see no evidence of the damage you assert that Cannabis causes, no reputable research, just a personal anecdotal viewpoint, one of which is owned by everyone. If instead you looked into the issues in question, and read some of the literature, eg as far back as the LaGuardia Report is still relevant; La Guardia Committee Report - Table of Contents and a biased, but rooted in factual research, report from Jack Herer Jack Herer - Chapters

read for yourself what has happened over the centuries, as the context to current prohibition, and why prohibition is inherently fascist, in its correct definition. Not that I am saying all prohibitionists are fascists, not even according to internet law, but the concept of prohibition clearly is.

[KimyReizeger]

As a Libertarian Socialist I am quite aware of my responsibilities towards society thank you very much, and your comments on 'feeling generalised' are about as wide of the mark as is possible. As a Libertarian I agree with the concept of Cognitive Liberty Cognitive liberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in regards to the socio-cultural framework of humanity. As a socialist I do not adhere to the theory that the economy should be free and unregulated, but that is another issue.

As for the issue of falsehood, I see no evidence of the damage you assert that Cannabis causes, no reputable research, just a personal anecdotal viewpoint, one of which is owned by everyone. If instead you looked into the issues in question, and read some of the literature, eg as far back as the LaGuardia Report is still relevant; La Guardia Committee Report - Table of Contents and a biased, but rooted in factual research, report from Jack Herer Jack Herer - Chapters

read for yourself what has happened over the centuries, as the context to current prohibition, and why prohibition is inherently fascist, in its correct definition. Not that I am saying all prohibitionists are fascists, not even according to internet law, but the concept of prohibition clearly is.

Given that that the aim to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies (wikipedia definition of libertarian socialism) is still just an aim, do you seriously think that the legalisation of drugs is in line with the current order of society? Is it not just wishful thinking to assume a society based around control over the individual would benefit from allowing profoundly altered states of consciousness? Your complaint appears to be much deeper than this single issue and based more around ideological revolution than practical solutions to a specific, current 'problem'.

By the way, what is the crux of the opposition to prohibition? Maybe the progentior of the thread can answer this? Do you all feel the same way as Mondragon?

[Stripey]

Hey Stripey, No-one smokes Soapy anymore, gak-tastic, and it is possible to hold down a job, so none of those delightful all-dayers you mention, but I was wondering how you spent your time. To recap; its no-ones fucking business if someone wants to alter their brain chemistry, mildly in this case. 100 years of prohibition adds up to fuck all in the history of humanity, but some still think that their remit runs to the contents of an individuals consciousness. This is a disgusting concept born of authoritarianism.

Yeah I fully agree, what you do to your own brain chemistry is nobodys business but your own. I do think the vast majority of potheads are a bunch of dull, easily entertained pseudophilosiphising idiots though.

Also I've personally seen 2 people suffer drug-induced psychotic breakdowns, which took them months to recover from and were forever altered by the experience. The only drug they ever took was weed. So I'm afraid the "it's harmless!" stuff doesn't wash with me atall.

[scottyboy]

By the way, what is the crux of the opposition to prohibition? Maybe the progentior of the thread can answer this? Do you all feel the same way as Mondragon?

I do. (8 chars)

[The Kernel Loaf]

what's the likelyhood of cannabis being legalised in aberdeen?

Exactly. This will be a complete waste of time.

[Sue Denim..]

What an absolute gift for the local police. Sit and watch the march, clock a few faces and just wait until the weekend and lift them.

That's why you won't be seeing me on any march. .... oh, and also I just can't be arsed.

[Lemonade]

This has got boring, lets get back to making fun of stoners.

[Bear]

what's the likelyhood of cannabis being legalised in aberdeen?

About the same as the chances that section 28 was going to be repealed any time soon, or that gays were going to be allowed to serve in the military around the time I left school in the early 1990's. In other words zero, in the short term.

In many ways the opposition to the war on drugs reminds me of the gay rights lobby back then. It seemed like a hopeless cause. The majority of people really didn't have a problem with gay rights but they were to scared to openly support them due to fear of being labelled as a homosexual in the closet, just as people automatically assume that I'm 'obviously just a stoner' for arguing for an end to the war on drugs and pragmatic policies to replace prohibition. The whole opposition to gay rights back then was based on prejudice and a desire to see the state legislate private morality, and the bigots appeared to be winning...

[Bear]

and by arguing against this restriction you ultimately argue against an entire ideology, within which pot-smoking is a mere trifle.

No shit. The New dividing line in British politics is liberal vs authoritarian, didn't you know?...

[Stripey]

The whole opposition to gay rights back then was based on prejudice and a desire to see the state legislate private morality

Um...you can't really use that argument because the gay rights movement has resulted in the government legislating private morality.

Pro-homosexual protesters lobbying to have homosexuality and related hate-crimes enshrined in law annoy me as much as the christian nutbags who oppose them and want their own agenda made law. Both are groups of ideological extremists attempting to use the law to enforce their moral prejudices on wider society - and this includes pro-legalisation of drugs campaigners - None of whom have any business telling the rest of us how to live our lives.

[Stripey]

No shit. The New dividing line in British politics is liberal vs authoritarian, didn't you know?...

utter simplistic drivel.

[Bear]

Um...you can't really use that argument because the gay rights movement has resulted in the government legislating private morality.

Pro-homosexual protesters lobbying to have homosexuality and related hate-crimes enshrined in law annoy me as much as the christian nutbags who oppose them and want their own agenda made law. Both are groups of ideological extremists attempting to use the law to enforce their moral prejudices on wider society - and this includes pro-legalisation of drugs campaigners - None of whom have any business telling the rest of us how to live our lives.

Yes I can. Wanting a piece of discrimination like section 28 removed and same sex couples to have the right to form civil partnerships is not the same as wanting legislation outlawing hate speech on the grounds of sexual orientation. The strong anti-hate stuff came much later. As far as I remember, in the early 1990's they were fighting for equal rights, not special protections, that came later and is a different issue entirely.

[Stripey]

Yes I can. Wanting a piece of discrimination like section 28 removed and same sex couples to have the right to form civil partnerships is not the same as wanting legislation outlawing hate speech on the grounds of sexual orientation. The strong anti-hate stuff came much later. As far as I remember, in the early 1990's they were fighting for equal rights, not special protections, that came later and is a different issue entirely.

No, it's the same issue - demanding the removal of section28 was itself an act of a prejudicial special interest group attempting to get the government to use the framework of the law to impose their own particular morality on wider society.

[Bear]

utter simplistic drivel.

Actually it was a joke, it was something Menzies Campbell used to say given every opportunity.

So what's the dividing line, if any? Last decent attempt I remember to find it was here ALL NEW! Political Survey

[Stripey]

Actually it was a joke, it was something Menzies Campbell used to say given every opportunity.

So what's the dividing line, if any? Last decent attempt I remember to find it was here ALL NEW! Political Survey

Who cares what the dividing line is, apart from pricks who want to tell other people what to do?

[Stripey]

frankly it is a sad state of affairs when people will show up to a protest like this, yet nobody could be arsed making their voices heard in aberdeen against the invasion of Iraq.

[Stripey]

frankly it is a sad state of affairs when people will show up to a protest like this, yet nobody could be arsed making their voices heard in aberdeen against the invasion of Iraq.

Oh thats right because your right to get high is more important than reigning in miltarly adventurism by our government which has caused the deaths of over a million innocent civilians in the last 5 years alone.

[Bear]

No, it's the same issue - demanding the removal of section28 was itself an act of a prejudicial special interest group attempting to get the government to use the framework of the law to impose their own particular morality on wider society.

Ummmmm, no. Wanting the removal of section 28 was wanting a piece of discrimination removed. Section 28 had the effect of making it illegal for teachers to 'promote' homosexuality which, at that time, made it illegal for teachers to say that homosexual relationships were equal with what the state was, at that time, promoting (hetrosexual marriage). Wanting that removed was not an attempt to get special rights or privileges, it was an attempt to have equality. At that time the law prevented the two being called equal. Political correctness and all that came way after the first anti-section 28 campaign.