There is no way forward.

Look to Eygpt.

Or look to independant candidates.

My brothers and sisters, we have been in a crisis for a while, and it looks grim.

Why haven’t,

“Anti corruption legislation”

And

“Whistle blower legislation”

Been at the fore of all our social “concience”. It’s a moral issue, it’s Sunday, either you want to regain your soul, or, you have destined yourself not to lie down in green pastures..

It’s up to all of us to decide.

These controls would put an end to the “powers that be”, who control this illicit drug trade.

So, you will never see them, except for some watered down version, many, many moons from now.

SJS

He didn’t mention you or even reference you.

He was very specific.

He said “And for those people who want to uphold the law because the law is always right:”

You’ve never taken this stance, that I’ve seen.

Therefore, he’s not talking about you.

However, there ARE people out there that DO take that stance and, while extreme, his point is very valid.

He was referring to a specific argument people use and had a valid point.

Folks that oppose the decriminalization of marijuana simply because it’s illegal need to be reminded that laws HAVE to change when society grows up.

Did you read the page you linked to?

Here’s the cut and paste…

Question(s):

Written by: Wendy Moelker, Psychologist in charge, tutor, Emergis center for mental health care, Goes, the Netherlands.
First version: 22 Jul 2008. Latest revision: 01 Dec 2008.
What are the negative effects of long-term use of cannabis/hashish/marijuana?
Answer:

Smoking one or more joints a day during a year or longer is considered long-term use. However, this varies from researcher to researcher.

The health risks of this long-term use are:

* In some cases high quantity users can experience feelings of anxiety, depression and be seriously unwell.

As can alcohol. One’s legal, the other not. Why is that ok?

* Cannabis influences driving ability.

So does alcohol. Or caffeine. Both are legal. Why is this ok?

* Smoking cannabis causes carcinogens to enter the body.

So does smoking tobacco. One’s legal, the other not.

* During pregnancy, cannabis can have negative consequences for the fetus.

So can alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, dying your hair, etc. etc.
They are legal, cannabis isn’t. How is that ok?

* Long-term use of cannabis may affect thinking, emotions and feelings.

Same with alcohol.

* In some cases, long-term use of cannabis can lead to dependence and abuse.

Um… seeing a trend here? I’m 8 months off of cigarettes. They’re legal.

* Cannabis can provoke a psychosis in people who are sensitive to it.

So can a myriad of other things, and they are legal.

* Some researchers are of the opinion that:
* Cannabis is a first step to the use of hard drugs.

Bullshit. Alcohol is the first step, a vast majority of the time. Look it up.

* Cannabis has negative effects on the immune system.

As does alcohol, tobacco, blah blah blah.

* Cannabis influences fertility.

Ditto…

* Cannabis causes schizophrenia.

I notice they don’t provide links… interesting, that.

* Cannabis leads to apathy and loss of interest.

Now we’re just moving into abstracts…

* Cannabis can cause anger, especially when trying to stop using Cananabis.

First off, Cannabis isn’t causing the anger. Lack of cannabis is.
Secondly, coming off of ANY addiction causes anger. And depression. And general crappiness.

That whole page is baseless scaremongering with NOTHING backing it up.

Nothing at all.

You know how I know? THIS is the last line:

“However, there is no proof for these statements.”

Try again. There ARE better resources out there, showing the REAL dangers of cannabis, not just the boogie man version.

http://web4health.info/it/add-cannabis-long-term.htm

A couple FACTS for you:

Marijuana is the main source of capital for the gangs in Bermuda.

The capital produced from the sale of marijuana funds the majority of illegal firearms in Bermuda.

And for those people who want to uphold the law because the law is always right:

Do you remember when slavery was legal?

And I know that I’ve been somewhat subtle, but if you don’t get any of the points that I’m making, you’re not worth a response.

the poster listed the sports he did, said he quit it all for weed..and somehow he comes out as a victim to marijuana??

doesnt matter how often they test or what not..not fussed about that.. im saying that there are scores of people that do quite well and still smoke, they just have priorities..and weed is not it. Lack of discipline is nOT the fault of some plant..

This would give a new meaning to the

BERMUDA HIGH.

another interesting read

This is a pretty good read.

this is actually an interesting point.. and a tangent that could be made relevant…

taking a break from the current lonnnnng thread… i ask, what defines color?

Some would say it is the specific molecular surface of the item, and how it absorbs/reflects light rays…

Others would say that it is how the eye/brain detects and interprets that light that has been reflected from a surface.

Personally, i think it is the first..
your thoughts? discuss!

second, from what you’ve been saying all along, and what you’ve just written, it seems to me you should spend more time in a “we dont enforce alcohol laws” forum, then you should a “legalize weed” forum. you’ve spent more time saying we shouldnt do it because we cant control booze (my opinion differs on that too tho), and really you should be putting your efforts into bumping up what you consider a lack of enforcement of alcohol. This is not the thread for that though.

we get statements from them about testing, failures, how society is falling apart.. but no movement on their part to do anything about it or even prove themselves as following the rules..

how the hell is it the UBP’s fault still??? or is this an alias for terry?

the vast majority of people who advocate at legalization or at least debating it mention regulation all the time.

i dont know any people (of those that dont quote bibles and reggae songs) who haven’t mentioned regulation and controls.

But yea it would be somewhat how u explained…kind of.

The thing about hard drugs is that it is a lot harder to control. Most people can’t smoke crack n still function the same way as a person who smoked a lil joint. I used to smoke as well but its way too expensive here to do be doing it so I just stopped (also mind that i never had a problem getting work done and smoking – again priorities). If i were smoking crack or heroin etc. that would be almost impossible to do on my own. Most people are not even supportive of hard drugs because they ruin a lot of peoples lives. It is hard for addicts to be a participating member of society.

To give you my answer to your question, it wouldn’t be a legal free-for-all at paget island, this would be too chaotic. What should happen is if you are addicted to hard drugs you can buy them from a rehab center for cheap (again cheaper than the street price) but with that said you will be checked into rehab along with it and given a plan to try and get you to quit. Obviously you cannot quit hard drugs cold turkey so most people will need help….rehab. The cost of this rehab can even be paid for by the revenue generated through marijuana sales, or even just the taxing on it alone. This will help keep the money off the streets while setting up positive programs to turn addicts clean. A lot of drug addicts do not want to be addicted but they see no other choice and have such a strong urge to use so they sometimes have to even do criminal acts just to get the money to use….this plan that I have suggested will stop that while also keeping drug dealers to a minimum and also help addicts recover.

Just back from school. I appreciate ya two cents. Not quite sure you answered #2 though?

If weed (only) is know legal. What prevents the young men who simply do not want or can not find a job to sell harder drugs? They have to survive, they just will result to selling other substances. What are your thoughts on this?

Do you think Bermuda should become like Amsterdam, take Paget island (or Something) and legalize all the drugs? This may kill the drug trade completely. They (The Gov) would know everyone that is on drugs and can possibly put a 10 year program in place to help people with their addictions. I may not be for this, but what are your thoughts?

Do you find it interesting how they would build the Prisons bigger, Mawi bigger, Police court house bigger, Hospital bigger (mind you they might need this), but with education they keep our people ignorant and don’t put no money into that! Interesting…….

“Ok, last post on this because frankly, I’m bored and need a drink.

Whenever there is case like this, the folks who think weed should be decriminalised or legalised come out of the woodwork like roaches from under the closet when the light is turned off.”

Firstly, that’s just a rude ad hominem designed to do nothing but cast those who disagree with you in a negative light and adds nothing to the conversation whatsoever.

Secondly, the same thing could be said about the folks who think weed should stay illegal.

“Usually, as evidenced here, the tact is usually “it’s not addictive”, or “people don’t misbehave” followed quickly by the comparison to the legal drug of alcohol. In this thread, we’ve had prescription drugs thrown in for good measure, but it doesn’t matter, the principle is the same.”

Wow. You just have NO interest in reading what people have to say, do you? The evidence of this is the fact that THIS is how you’re painting “the tact” people are taking. You’ve created this whole reality in your head and, quite obviously, nothing anyone says to the contrary will be even considered.
To simplify the argument to those two points shows a complete lack of comprehension of people’s points.

“If you bother to read you will see that I haven’t actually taken issue with the relative merits of one drug over another. What I have done is recognise that the legal drug, alcohol, causes tremendous issues in our society and tools to control it’s use are not used or laws adequately enforced.”

I’m the one reading. You’re the one ignoring people’s points.
You’ve raised comparisons to alcohol (which I thought was bad, based on the previous bit, but I guess that ol’ double standard raises its ugly head again), but not once called for it to be made illegal. In fact, at the beginning of the post, you condoned its use!
Can’t you see the hypocrisy in that?
Why is it ok for you to drink and not ok for someone else to smoke pot?
Because it can’t be monitored? Well, that’s obviously not a reason to make or keep something illegal.
All of your points apply to alcohol, as you admit, yet you have no problem with alcohol being legal.

Another double standard.

“My central argument continues to be, you will legalise a substance that undoubtedly affects behaviour, ability to function and mood without ANY adequate controls.”

And the precedent is already there. Why is one ok and the other not?

“None of the children screaming for legal weed bothered to understand what challenges this would bring, including evidence from the Dutch experience.”

I turned 42 today. Hardly a child, but thank you.

Also, this language? Just another ad hominem.

“In fact, none of the proponents in this thread demonstrated any real understanding of the consequence of legalisation. Now, I explained that as a personal safety issue but it would manifest itself in many ways. ANd yet, even by pointing this out, I was still met with the comparison to alcohol as some sort of definitive argument.”

Because there IS a comparison and a double standard.
Why are you ok with it when it’s booze, but not when it’s pot?
You explained A personal safety issue, but evaded and deflected when it was pointed out that this issue already exists and that keeping it illegal isn’t going to make it go away.

“And here’s the kicker, I really don’t have an issue with weed. It’s just the clowns that let it define their lives.”

Why is that a reason to keep it illegal and not alcohol?
Why is “clowns that let it define their lives” valid support for your position, but not for the pro-decriminalization folks?

On the other side of the spectrum which most of you are discussing is the “drug” debate, what has been said already is true. Weed just like food, sex, video games etc. can all be emotionally addictive, but not everyone will obv. have this reaction so therefore we cannot stamp marijuana with such a statement when this is not the case. The caffeine in your morning coffee or the nicotine in your lunch break smoke or even the glass of wine at dinner are all most physically addicting that smoking marijuana. If you are a person of priorities then you will not have this problem.

With that said the fact remains that if you legalize marijuana it will for a fact take the money out of drug dealers hands and right back into our economy (positive effect). Having limitations and restrictions will have more control on the substance and the gov. will be able to monitor its consumption (positive effect). With it being legal we can then make laws on how it can be used, just like ciggs, and alcohol (positive effect).

For the questions put forth by “Life and Death is in the power of the tongue”

1. The penalty for importing marijuana ILLEGALLY would still be high. They would not have a licence in the first place to sell it and therefore should not have the right to import it. The whole point of this debate is so that it is controlled.
2. The reason why many people sell marijuana is because it is easy. Most of my friends from primary school ended up doing it because it was easy money and didn’t require much effort. Not because they were dumb. just lazy. With that said no one will buy weed from them because the gov. price will obv be lower and will drive them out of business and they would move on n get a real job. Who wants to work when u can make a 1000$ a day doing nothing but selling weed for a few hrs.
3. Smoking will def be controlled as well. The same way you cannot drink in the street or get drunk at your kids sports day then you will not be able to smoke there either. You would have to smoke in private or at a designated spot (cafe etc.)
4 & 5. Smoking will have an age limit just as does alcohol. the age limit is set at 18 because at that age you should be able to make your own responsible decisions, although i know that is not always the case. You would have to apply to get a card to buy marijuana from designated controlled retailers. This way all of your information will be on file and anything can be traced back to you and being underage will not fly as you will have to show your photo ID etc.

With these things set in motion I think THE OVERALL outcome would be better. I’m not saying people won’t abuse marijuana but those certain people will abuse anything, Speeding, drinking, fighting….the list goes on. But the fact remains that people are going to use it regardless so why not control it, let the economy benefit from it ($), and decrease crime and drug trafficking from it. Makes sense to me. Not talking from emotions, but from logic and reasoning.

Just my two cents.

Whenever there is case like this, the folks who think weed should be decriminalised or legalised come out of the woodwork like roaches from under the closet when the light is turned off. Usually, as evidenced here, the tact is usually “it’s not addictive”, or “people don’t misbehave” followed quickly by the comparison to the legal drug of alcohol. In this thread, we’ve had prescription drugs thrown in for good measure, but it doesn’t matter, the principle is the same.

If you bother to read you will see that I haven’t actually taken issue with the relative merits of one drug over another. What I have done is recognise that the legal drug, alcohol, causes tremendous issues in our society and tools to control it’s use are not used or laws adequately enforced.

My central argument continues to be, you will legalise a substance that undoubtedly affects behaviour, ability to function and mood without ANY adequate controls. None of the children screaming for legal weed bothered to understand what challenges this would bring, including evidence from the Dutch experience. In fact, none of the proponents in this thread demonstrated any real understanding of the consequence of legalisation. Now, I explained that as a personal safety issue but it would manifest itself in many ways. ANd yet, even by pointing this out, I was still met with the comparison to alcohol as some sort of definitive argument.

And here’s the kicker, I really don’t have an issue with weed. It’s just the clowns that let it define their lives.

2)Maybe some will but maybe some won’t. Perhaps instead the government could give these young men jobs in this industry?

3)This one is tough cause obviously not up to me. But if you want my opinion, I think designated coffee shops(with age restrictions) could work, but I think people would be fine with just doing it in their own homes.

4)I would NEVER want it in/on a school property as I would not expect alcohol to be allowed in school
5)21, my opinion only as it is not for me to decide.

Most of these answers are out of my hands, but those are my opinions. Great questions though!

Accusing me of “moving the goal posts”, then deflecting when asked about it.

Typical.