Lets actually do something to legalize cannabis, or at least talk about doing it...

[ngakpa]

hi PVR, contrary to the popular misconception, the UN Single Convention is not binding, and any signitory can opt out should it choose to do so

likewise, the Transform guide has some very handy information and I would advise everybody with an interest in campaign work to read it (especially those in the UK)

the battle to end prohibtion is ongoing, and we will win it

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

hello nagkpa,

um... how sure are you that u.n rulings are not binding? i don't think you understand how these things work.
lets say you don't sign the u.n single convention, sure, you are not binded to sign it, but if you do not
(as a country) you will face repercussions like economical embargos. so they may say it is not binding,
but once you disagree with the drug pushers of the world (mainly right-wing politicial and economical elites)
you are in trouble with the biggest mafia of the world who are capable of punishing you through economical sanctions,
so how is that not binding?
take india for example, the more it accepts corporate values, which are all policies of economical developments
with u.n back up, the more restrictions on personal liberties manifest, how do we explain this?
imagine if iran decides to withdraw its signature from the u.n single convention, that alone would give the u.n grounds
to allow violent attacks upon iran and its citizens.

personally, i don't listen to any law i regard as a violation of my human rights, but the question of the thread was
to do something pragmatic to end prohibition, and the only way is to disregard and disobey in a civil manner
the hypocritial u.n single convention, and replace the u.n since it has been shown they gravitate towards the interests
of oligarchies. i think the whole "change the system within the system" ideal is too romantic and misleading,
if you want to change the system, just change it... those of us who live in democratic countries have such a right too, because
it is us the people who have the power and whose voices our goverments must listen to. right?

peace

 

[HCSmyth]

The legalization/normalization of cannabis in the US society needs to be a gentle progression in order to be successful in my view. As Gypsy pointed to the propaganda by anti-cannabis pundits is often very strong. Therefore, small steps toward legalization/normalization of cannabis is needed I believe. To start off, in the US cannabis needs to be completely rescheduled to Schedule II or higher. Any federal medical marijuana legislation that does not do this will be a failure.

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

hello hcsmyth,

i am just pointing out that if people want to 'actually do something to legalize' cannabis, only pragmatic action counts, the rest (besides grass-roots movements) is just playing along with the bureaucrats' game world-wide.
introducing petitions, rescheduling cannabis, etc... are all actions done under a false understanding of cannabis, and perpetuating debates under that context is self-contradictory. the problem of cannabis prohibition transcends prohibition, it exposes before us a flawed system, and solving things through flawed systems designed poorly will result in flawed and poor solutions. imho.

peace.

 

[HCSmyth]

hello hcsmyth,

i am just pointing out that if people want to 'actually do something to legalize' cannabis, only pragmatic action counts, the rest (besides grass-roots movements) is just playing along with the bureaucrats' game world-wide.
introducing petitions, rescheduling cannabis, etc... are all actions done under a false understanding of cannabis, and perpetuating debates under that context is self-contradictory. the problem of cannabis prohibition transcends prohibition, it exposes before us a flawed system, and solving things through flawed systems designed poorly will result in flawed and poor solutions. imho.

peace.

Unfortunately humans are always flawed to a certain extent so the systems humans create will always be flawed to a certain extent as well. But that does not mean people can not make it less flawed by seeking out a more perfect union. I understand your motives are more often anti-establishment than mine are. I think the existing system with all its flaws is still better than the alternative system that you might suggest.

 

[Patsheba]

Ahh, yes, 30 years ago, I wrote my high school picture caption "Look for me at the revolution, I will be in the front row"

Well, it got damn lonely there and all that happened was, I got hoarse, made a few enemies among our public officials (which = law enforcement harassment).

And there was that one basic problem (as my father warned me), "don't knock it down, unless you have something BETTER to replace it with"

I began studying history, political science and large doses of sociology. It is a large/long process. I have not discovered any better models/suggestions than the original ideal of democracy, as our forefathers wrote it.

I think it would really help, it somehow all the crooks (giving the public misinformation should be treason, and profitting from public office with contracts...) to this ideal were prosecuted; instead of the guy who got a blow job.

In the meantime, I march, I rally, I support others court dates if I can, I get signed petitions to keep bringing the MJ issue back to Congress. At least I see some steps in that area. So many of my other "small steps" have had no progress (ie. tax reform, peace movement).

And when really stupid stuff happens, I go to this website & it's brother and feel better http://sorryeverybody.com

 

[ngakpa]

"After The War on Drugs: Options For Control"
A Report by Transform: Drug Policy Foundation
http://tdpf.org.uk

free pdf download

 

[mriko]

Hey, glad to see this thread back to life !

We'll start off on your global reform with an internal attack on US policies, to emphasize your point

Yeah, but external pressure counts a lot too. If organisations such as non aligned-coutries, Saarc or whatever would push for it, it could only bring good for the cause. That's one very important thing I think. Just imagine Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Nepal deciding all together that it's enough and that they want to reinstall a legal industry of used to be a traditionnal resource (I recently read about this kind of thing happening between different South American countries about coca, but can't find again the darn link).

Internal attack counts a lot, but it would rather have to be an internal attack about overall US foreign policies. Cannabis (and other traditionnal plants as well) are nothing than part of US politics aiming at policing and controlling the world. So these internal attacks are not about stopping top ressure producing coutries or changing local laws, it is about revolutionnizing the way US have been conducting its policies since the WW2. Cannabis is a great way to pressure on Governments, and also an amzing natural resource which, if used wisely, can make possible for many many countries to be less dependent on US aid, then less subjective to it, eheh...

I remember the UN recently stepped up its offensive on what they considered high-grade cannabis. But because I am an American I tend not to pay any attention to the UN because many other Americans, and myself are under the belief that the UN is not the boss of me/us. Any way there is plenty of room to reform my countries drug laws before we have to even worry about the UN.

Very true too, US just don't give a shit about what UN says. but UN counts a lot, because they have been put in charge by the US to apply its will on other countries, and so is considered as an authority, a reference around the world.
There are two annual reports with global impact, that of the US state Dept. and that of the UN. There used to be as well the one of the OGD (Geopolitical Drug Watch), which was considered as well as a reference, and even a better one than the two others because of total political freedom. But OGD is alas finished now, and only the lying pigs remains...

The UN cannot pressure the US in anyway, but they can pressure any little country who's willing to change its laws, thus the importance of UN. Word must be spread that the UNDCP (United Nation Drug Control Program)has turned into nothing else than a fascist office, which destroyes cultures and societies, maintain whole population in poverty and under persecussion (and waste loads and loads of money as well, which could be better used for other programs).

i agree, one thing that i fear if MJ gets legalized is a commercilization of it and a lack of biodiversity. im afraid they will put a government maximal THC content of *% or some bull shit like that. but by all means make it absolutly legal for those who need it.

Yeah, that is one thing we can fear with legalization. Loss of biodiversity, loss of quality. Just look what happens with simple fruits or vegetables. It's ultra regulated, with a very few varities (often lab-elaborated) allowed for selling. I'm against legalization actually and much prefer a regulation. Legalization will put the market under control of WTO, so in tthe hands of greedy businessmens and who would soon ruin the international market putting back producing people in poverty.
Medical Mj is different though as there would be no way that regulating authorities accept the importation of exotic stuff. Production would have to be local, and auto-production (or through clubs) should be as well favored.

I would love to see it legalized and the insurance companies have to pay for it as medicine. I would incorporate and agree to a cheap price with the HMO(say half of the normal $6400/lb{figured @$50/eighth}) and just like the big pharma companies, I would laugh all the way to the bank. That way, i could still provide it for free to those who don't have insurance.

I have some doubts that insurance companies woudl be wiling to pay for it. For isolated compounds in pills maybe, but for buds, I strongly doubt it.

so in the spirit of that ideal, what we need to do is write a proper paper explaining why prohibition violates our human rights, such as our right to have any religion, and since cannabis is a sacrament to many religious currents, making it illegal is a world-wide violation of human rights.

Hmm, I think the sacrament thing is a two-edged blade. Would the Saarc countries show up and say "hey, this is sacrament for us, it has a place in our religions". ok no problem. in North America as well were religious freedom is strong, it could be ok. But I have hard time seeing this point being usable in my country, France. no way ! If Ishow up and say, yeah, cannabis is part of my spiritual life, I'll be looked at weirdly if not considered as schizo...(yeah, any spiritual experience under the influence of a psychotropic plant, or even without..., can be considered as sign of some mental problem by most of psy...).
That is why, the problem must be addresse on a global way, with everyone's arguments put in the game.

politicians benefit from prohibition economically, lots of $$ under the table, free of tax.

Definitely, be it political, economic, or private, politicians have a benefit in prohibition. but it profits only to themselves and their close ones.

freedom of religion and ending of black market are the strongest arguments. medicinal too, can't forget medicinal uses

I would rather put development and stabilisation of many third world countries, then huge money savings for consumming countries (through the trade of recreationnal cannabis, job created and savings for national health insurances thanks to medicinal cannabis). And medicinal of course !

Fight against corruption is also a good arguments. It would not end it, but it could help to curb it. First because growers and traders wouldn't have to bribe cops or any, second because profits made could help to give better pay to people who are subject to corruption, such as cops or customs, thus making them less respondant to corruption.

Can even pull out the fight against terrorism. in 2004, in Pakistan I met a doctor from Swat valley whose opinion is that cannabis trade shoudl be legal ("it is one of our traditionnal resources"), which could provide work to many young people who are totally left to themselves, with no work, no family, thus nofuture. Rather than commiting suicide, these young guys prefer to enroll in talebans or others and find the way to God as martyrs. Few years ago, 7000 young men from Swat went to Jihad in Afghanistan, barely 2000 made it back...
I'm sure that a large part of the fighters in Afghanistan would prefer to grow their charas patch and thus be able to raise and feed honnestly a family.

these are the type of real-world arguments we need to introduce to the UN, and if we are not heard, we will know the UN is benefiting economically from such black market, and we should call upon a world wide civil disobedience regarding UN ruling and call for the formation of a new UN, completely new, not reformed

rather better to force the UN to admit its mistake (still, there's the problem of the US who control the US whenit comes to plant drugs...) and force them to do so, by making them facing their wrong deeds, such as favorizing criminality, maintaining impoverished populations into poverty, destroying cultures, destroying bio-diversity, supporting the death penalty where it is applied. Human rights are important too for sure, but intoday's world, in too many places people are scared enough by official speeches to give up some of their rights for a "better" security. Thus, arguments linked problems such as mass-immigration and even terrorism should be put in the debate as well.
The UN is needed to regulate the international trade of cannabis (can be based on what they do with pharmaceutical opium) in order to keep the market out of the big business men and preventing them to ruin the market at their own profit.

PazVP, I don't believe any argument is necessary to the UN. The UK decided to have mj studies beginning over 2 1/2, and there have been no UN repercussions. Within a few months after their studies began, doctors in Germany and India (for certain) and other places began utilizing it and studying it (i.e. a recent discovery that mj neutrilizes brain cancer cells was by accident, as mj was just part of the overall treatments, but the immune suppression was seen and filmed). It was in a third country that a cannabinoid was just discovered and isolated that actually reduces appetite (compared to the 3 or 4 that increase it)! Pfizer or GW Pharm., look at what the "authorized" big drug companies are going for! The $ drugs first!

There's a big difference between making studies and turning an illegal industry into a legal one. Studies does not imply the UN to change its policies. And usually they dismiss those showing positive health result (don't forget that it's the voice of america and has the mission to apply the US vision of drug plants to the world)
Big pharmcorps (except GWpharm) are actually more working on synthetic compounds DERIVED from cannabinoids, rather than natural ones. FOr sure they want the bucks, but they'll make more if they release their own cannabinoid-based home compound.

I don't really fancy the idea of a global legalization starting from US (once again showing the way to the world ? err...). Move should come first from producing countries, ideally those of Saarc.

the argument that cannabis prohibition is a violation of the human right to practice any religion freely so long as no harm is done to another is simply undefeatable, anyone wanna try? because it is the truth. i don't believe in any guides in how to do anything, specially something like mj legalization, which shows there are not working guides in how to legalize it or it would already have been legalized through such processes.

Nay, it's only because of a few ultra-empowered people that it hasn't happend yet. Gov. don't care that much about human rights alas, only when it is to their profits, or when they can't do other way. Otherwise, they don't give much shit about it. Big business comes first !

like i said, if the UN doesn't hear reason and truth, they gotta go along with their laws, and a new UN must be formed in its place.

Hard to make them hear reason for sure. I think the only way is a move from some producing countries (I'm sticking to the Saarc eheh...).
Un actually has very litle pressure to face in its work. It is mostly coming from activities of Western NGOs, activites thus remaining mostly concealed in the western countries, with little little efficacy. If this Western people network activity can combine with some official actions coming from developping/producing countries, then there comes a way to real puch on the UN. I'm getting more and more sure of it, a change need strong lobbying in the Saarc countries, definitely.

I don't know how to create a new UN eheh. I'd rather think about reshaping the UNDCP. The good thing about them is that they already have a network in producing countries, so they have structure which can make easier to install fastly a regulated trade.

hi PVR, contrary to the popular misconception, the UN Single Convention is not binding, and any signitory can opt out should it choose to do so

I would say that they are, in some ways, and different ways given the country who rebels. If France decided to legalize, I think that reactions would be much different than if Afghanistan did. Afgh. would suffer huge pressure from UN AND most Western countries, with threats to suppress this or that aid or whatever.

The legalization/normalization of cannabis in the US society needs to be a gentle progression in order to be successful in my view.

but simple rescheduling has the problem that it boosts the criminal networks which are taking advantage of the new laws. US is a particular case as it is the first or second MJ producer in the world and also a huge consumer. They are among the few western countries were a huge illegal canna-industry is thriving and will need to be turned into a legal one. It will be officially amongst the commercially producing cannabis country. This is not the case in France for instance, and there's no way such an industry would show up here.


One very important arguments that must be used as well is that of global warming. So many growers are using 100s and 1000s of watts for their grow and this consummes huge amounts of energy of course. So many people grow indoor for security reason instead of in their backyards, and would be happy to switch off the lamp ! Huge amounts of energy and money wouldbe saved as well tanks a regulated market and legalized home production.

interesting report ngakpa, thanks for posting !

Irie !

 

[ngakpa]

Can even pull out the fight against terrorism. in 2004, in Pakistan I met a doctor from Swat valley whose opinion is that cannabis trade shoudl be legal ("it is one of our traditionnal resources"), which could provide work to many young people who are totally left to themselves, with no work, no family, thus nofuture. Rather than commiting suicide, these young guys prefer to enroll in talebans or others and find the way to God as martyrs. Few years ago, 7000 young men from Swat went to Jihad in Afghanistan, barely 2000 made it back...
I'm sure that a large part of the fighters in Afghanistan would prefer to grow their charas patch and thus be able to raise and feed honnestly a family.

Irie !

This seems a very important point I think - the drug trade is at the centre of many areas of regional instability and conflict, and now is a good time to get this idea in circulation, meme-like as it were

Farmers and workers across the world potentially have a great deal to gain from the legitimisation of drug crops ... instead of being prayed upon by militias, war lords, armies, governments etc. etc. they could instead have their rights and freedoms respected and recieve a fair share of profits

The Transform report goes into detail on this better than I can, but as I say, if the plutocrats of the world are really serious about international "security", they need to consider the links between the drugs trade, arms and regional conflict...

Prohibtion not only needlessly enforces rural poverty and thus promotes extremism, it also in a directly connected way, enables local ""war lords"" in areas such as Central Asia, SE Asia and Africa to purchase arms etc.

 

[ngakpa]

Hiya Paz - to answer your concerns I figure I am best off just using the Transform material:


European politics

There is no longer a European consensus behind
prohibition or even agreement about what ‘the drug
problem’ is. There is increasing tension between
reformist states and those who remain committed to
a US-style drug war, with policies between
European neighbours becoming increasingly
divergent.

Positive signs…

• The European Parliament has been far more
outspoken than its UK counterpart in its
criticisms of prohibition and calls for reform. In
2002, 108 MEPs (Including ten UK MEPs and a
further five UK MPs) signed a petition stating that
"the drug prohibition policy stemming from the
UN Conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988 is the
actual cause of the increasing damage which the
production, trafficking, sale and consumption of
illegal substances inflict on entire sections of
society, the economy as well as public
institutions, thus undermining health, freedom
and individuals' lives" and calling for "a system for
the legal control and regulation of the production,
sale and consumption of substances which are
currently illegal." (8)

• Many European states are already reforming
policy and law (mostly decriminalising personal
possession of drugs) in defiance of the UN drug
control agencies and the US (see drug policy
reform around the world p.41). It seems likely that
a coalition of these states (in partnership with
other reform-minded countries including
Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a number of
Latin American countries) will lead reforms to the
UN conventions to allow greater domestic
freedom to determine drug policy, including
options beyond prohibition.

UN Politics

The UN drug agencies are dominated by the
influence of the US and its entrenched prohibitionist
thinking, with unsurprising outcomes (most recently
reveled in a leaked letter from The UN drugs chief
(10)). They are widely seen as trenchant, dogmatic
and out of touch with reality, not least by other,
more pragmatic harm-reduction-oriented UN
agencies including UNAIDS and the WHO. None
the less, the three UN drug treaties have a powerful
hold over domestic drug legislation, limiting the
room for manoeuvre for reform minded states.

Positive signs…

• Cracks are appearing in the UN consensus as
pragmatic reforming countries are challenging
the rigid prohibitions decreed by the UN treaties
(see drug policy reform around the world p.41)

• Following the 2004 announcement in Russia that
personal possession of all drugs would no longer
be criminalised (but dealt with using
administrative sanctions) the new head of the UN
Drug Control Programme praised the move
saying the revised law "appreciated the drug
problem not as a law enforcement only but also
as a health problem, and therefore [is] a very
major commitment to working toward the
problem from the demand side and not only from
the supply side." (11)

Drug Policy Reform; A Global
Movement

Prohibition is a global phenomenon, operating
under the three UN drug conventions (1961, 1971,
and 1988) that enshrine criminal sanctions for the
production, supply and use of certain drugs into the
domestic law of over 150 countries and territories.
As this section illustrates, the drug policy reform
movement is also a global phenomenon, with
countries increasingly adopting the more pragmatic
harm reduction paradigm and adapting policy and
legislation accordingly. It is a welcome sign that
global prohibition has passed its high tide mark and
is now on the retreat, and provides a growing body
of evidence to inform the reform process in the UK
and beyond.

No countries have yet legalised any drug covered
under the UN conventions. Such unilateral moves
are still likely to incur the wrath of the prohibitionist
establishment, not least the powerful political forces
of the US and UN drug agencies. However, there
have been significant moves across the world
toward the de-facto decriminalisation of personal
possession and use of drugs, bending (sometimes
to near breaking point) the nominally rigid
prohibitions of the conventions. This
decriminalisation trend has most commonly been
associated with cannabis but in a number of
countries it includes all drugs. It is a challenge to
both the letter and spirit of prohibitionist legislation
and will inevitably to lead to more reasoned
consideration of supply-side reforms. Whilst wider
moves towards legalisation are still some time away,
the decriminalisation trend appears to point the way
to a challenge from a coalition of progressive states
to reformulate or withdraw from the UN
conventions. The aim will be to allow locally
determined regulatory systems and bilateral trade
agreements to be established.

Drug policy reform around the
world

Luxembourg

In April 2001 Luxembourg decriminalised cannabis
possession (along with transportation and
acquisition for personal use) - now dealt with using
administrative rather than criminal sanctions.

Portugal

In July 2001 Portugal decriminalised the use and
possession of all drugs. Anyone caught with less
than 10 daily doses (and provided police have no
further suspicion or evidence of more serious
offences such as sale or trafficking) is brought
before a local commission who will evaluate the
individual's situation and provide treatment and
rehabilitation services where appropriate.

Belgium

Since 2002 possession of cannabis has been
decriminalised - now only prosecuted in cases of
social nuisance (similar to the new UK approach).

Germany

Possession of small amounts of any drug (weights
determined by local government) is not prosecuted.
Since 1994 more than 50 safe heroin injecting
rooms with medical supervision have opened,
legalised and regulated since 1999. Since 2002 a
sophisticated heroin-dispensing programme has
been functioning in seven major cities. NGO drug
testing projects (mostly for ecstasy and other ‘party’
drugs) are tolerated.

Denmark

Possession of small amounts of cannabis is dealt
with by police caution and small amounts of heroin
by caution and confiscation. Fines are imposed for
repeat offenders. Those in possession of a single
dose for their own use will in some cases be
allowed to retain it, the police motive being that the
effect of confiscation would be minimal as the
person in question would probably have to commit
a crime to obtain money for another dose.

Switzerland

Possession of any drug for personal use is dealt
with as a misdemeanour (administrative sanctions).
In 2001 the Swiss Senate approved a law to legalise
the possession, cultivation and use of cannabis (for
over 18s), supported by a majority of the
population, but was narrowly defeated by a 2004
vote in the House of Representatives. Cannabis is
tolerated by police and is widely available in ‘hemp
shops’. Switzerland has a pioneering large scale
heroin prescribing programme (approved by
national referendum) and in 1998 held the world’s
first national referendum on drug legalisation (28%
in favour).

France

Prosecutors decide on a case-by-case basis
whether to give a warning for a first offence, to
apply criminal penalties or to refer to treatment. A
1999 Ministry of Justice directive recommends not
prosecuting cases of simple consumption of illegal
drugs when other more serious offences are not
involved, and that prison should be used only as a
‘last resort’.

Italy

Since 1990 possession of drugs for personal use
has been decriminalised and subject only to
administrative sanctions, such as fines (which in
some cases can be waived if the subject is willing
to enter treatment). 2006 update: at the time of
writing there are pre-election moves to reintroduce
harsh penalties for various offences.

Netherlands

Possession of small quantities of any drug is not
prosecuted. Theoretically this means under 0.5g of
heroin or cocaine or 5g of cannabis, but in practice
possession offences are rarely prosecuted for any
drug. Cannabis coffee shops for consumption and
sale of cannabis have been tolerated under
licensing conditions since 1976. Heroin is available
on prescription and safe injecting rooms are
provided. Injecting rooms with a resident dealer, so
called ‘basement projects’, are also tolerated.
Trafficking offences (under 3kg for cocaine) are
rarely prosecuted.

Russia

In May 2004 Russia introduced a new law replacing
imprisonment with administrative fines for
possession of ‘up to ten doses’ any drugs for personal
use. Foreigners can still be expelled and
denied re-entry for possession offences.

USA

In October 1973, Oregon State reduced the offence
of possession of less than 1 oz. of cannabis to a
civil violation, with a maximum penalty of a $100
fine. From 1973 to 1978, ten other states (including
Alaska) enacted legislation which reduced the
maximum penalties for cannabis possession to a
fine.

Australia

South Australia decriminalised cannabis possession
for personal use in 1986 with The Australian Capital
Territory following suit in 1992, Northern Territory in
1996 and Victoria in 1998. Most recently Western
Australia extended the policy to include all drugs.
Sydney is now home to Australia’s first safe heroin
injecting rooms.

Israel

Possession of up to 5 ecstasy pills is deemed
‘personal possession’ and is no longer prosecuted

South America

A number of South American countries are
considering or have already implemented policies
to decriminalise personal possession of all drugs,
including Venusuela, Colombia and Brazil.

Note on decriminalisation..

Despite being widely used in political and media
discourse, the term ‘decriminalisation has caused
confusion, being technically incorrect since drug
possession remains illegal in all countries. In reality
however, de facto decriminalisation has been
achieved either through tolerant policing and nonenforcement,
or more commonly by replacing
criminal sanctions (arrest, conviction, imprisonment)
with civil or administrative sanctions (most
commonly fines or treatment referrals). This form of
decriminalisation might more accurately be called
‘prohibition with civil or administrative penalties’ and
has often been introduced simultaneously with a
hardening of penalties for supply and trafficking
offences.



Timeline for Reform

1998 - 2002

UN sets ambitious
drug prohibition
targets under a 10
year plan with the
slogan “A Drug Free
World – We Can Do
It!”

2002 - 2006

As failure becomes
increasingly visible
divisions grow
between
prohibitionist and
reformist countries
• Growing formal
alliance between
Euro member states
on treaty reform,
wider global informal
alliance, including
Canada, Australia,
and South American
states
• Moratorium on aerial
fumigation of drug
crops

2007 - 2012

UN 10 year
plan expires in
failure
• Progressive countries
publicly challenge
the UN drug control
system
• UN treaties become
increasingly
redundant as states
sideline UN drug
agencies

2013 - 2018

Coalition states
redraft treaties to
allow an opt out
from absolute
prohibition and
implementation of
regulatory models
for specific drugs
• Widespread
international moves
towards regulation
of most drugs
• Bilateral drug
trading agreements
established between
reform states

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

if in france most people would think of you as mentally ill because a psycheactive herb is used as a religious sacrament, they are not in their right to enforce their opinion on others; that is the gist of the human rights bill. so that all parts of your human development can flourish up to its full potential without other people trying to harass you. if in france religious freedom isn't respected, the goverment is making a serious transgression against personal liberties. i think making arguments pro legalization that caters to the how the close minded may react is counter productive too.
peace!

 

[mriko]

eheh, yeah, France doesn't respect religious freedom, that's very true. US have put the finger on it several times in some reports, and I think that we've been also condemned by European Commission as well (I'm not 100% sure about this one).

France is ultra-materialist country, here science decide what is true or not, what is acceptable or not. EVERYDAY, people are brainwashed with the "scientifically proven". If it is not scientifically proven, then it does not exist, then it can't be true.
So, when it comes to God & spirituality, well... need I say more ?

Religion is a hot topic here, very hot. Drugs are very hot topic too. Mix them together and you get something absolutely unbearable for "right thinkers". If people congregate together and partake a psychoactive sacrament, they are labelled as a sect (it's a very negative word here in France) and everything is done to crush them.

I remember some years ago when I was in heavy experimenting of any kind of psychoactive compound (natural or mand made) I could get my hands on. Went a bit too far on some, eheh, and ended up on substitution treatment. Had to meet a psy once a week. Was great one, definitely. We had great exchanges and conversations really. Until the day I talked about a really terrifying and shacking Ayahuasca experience (contact with very,very dark dimensions). She opened her heyes wide and told me "ooooh, be carefull, this could be the signs of some schizophrenia".
Ah Fuck it !

So called "Science" rules the minds here, and most things which can't be subjected to this rule are considered as weird or dangerous.

Rather than real Science, it is actually much more an Ideology which is applied and spread through the use of technology, in some ways we could even say that more and more it is the machine who are deciding what we must believe. What the screen shows, we can believe, otherwise forget it.

French society is fucking weird, everytime I come back from ultra-spiritual/religious India/Pakistan I get a bloody heavy culture shock. So dead here...

Sorry for getting a bit out of topic haha !

Irie !

 

[ngakpa]

yeh I hear all that Mriko

there's a new wave of "reefer madness" hysteria on in the UK at the minute

same as 1950s America, except now they call it "skunk psychosis"

- on prohibition and religious freedom there are interesting possibilites with some of the newer human rights legislation

from Cannabis Campaigners Guide
http://www.ccguide.org.uk/humanrights.php

November Coalition page
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/07/0703.html

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

mriko, i hear you, it is kind of similar all over the so called western world. science has became a
new religion, even a god. whatever science says is the ultimate truth. sure, science has its positive things,
no doubt about it, but i think we have been giving it too much importance and have allowed science, or at least some
kind of scientism, to become the stick through which we measure and describe reality to ourselves.
and laws like prohibition have been made to keep as many people away from the freedom to describe to themselves
other realities through the use of entheogens.
so, if the human rights bill, which the u.n and most - if not all - countries of the world
have promised its people to respect and behold, is then disregarded in the present day through laws
like prohibition. this contradiction becomes evidence to the people, who are the real power - it is we who elect these politician dudes-, that
we need to elect new leaders who have a new conciousness. we cannot force the idiots who are already in power
to stop with their corruption and close mindedness, so it is our civil responsability to simply stop voting for anyone
who is not proposing serious change in all areas. and until change is made "official" through legislatures, we act in
civil disobedience and our human and civil rights are to be guaranteed until the change that the people have chosen
is properly printed in paper to make it "official".

i don't see the complication with this view, it is sort of what most growers are already doing, but this would take out
the crappy conditions in which we have to grow, would take out most prejudices, stop persecution, uncalled violence, etc...

peace.