SO what compromise would you accept

[neuroherb]

I'm pretty much for full legalisation of all drugs, previously used to be only cannabis untill it was pointed out I was being selective for my preference. So lately been thinking what compromise would I be willing to accept in order to get real legalisation. There are conversations around regarding how seeds could be GM modified to prevent production of further seeds etc... and personally I would also accept a proper roadside test to assess if a driver was unsafe due to taking any drug. I know there are plenty on here that would not accept being unable to breed from commercial seeds however as an end user if I had to buy a 5 pack of Diesel seeds everytime to grow a legal crop I could live with that although I can tell quite a few are idealistic and could not.

So given that real life is a compromise between what you ideally want and what you can actually get what would people be willing to consider as a compromise in order to have legalisation and regulation instead of criminalisation?

 

[supermanlives]

hell no . i will never accept gm seeds. and i will always breed.

 

[Agaricus]

There's nothing wrong with being selective. Pot has no business being classified along with truly harmful drugs. Neither do the "psychedelics." To me that's a separate issue that has some fairly simple answers.

I used to be dead set against any kind of legalization of "hard drugs" but seeing the great harm that prohibition does and the attendant violence it causes I've changed my tune. Keeping drugs and drug use underground exposes the users to unsanitary conditions, impure product of unknown strength, and puts them at the mercy of some, to say the least, unsavory characters. Those factors cause more problems than the drugs could possibly cause themselves.

The harm reduction model, where addicts have access to whatever it is they need and to treatment when desired, looks pretty good. There are also treatments that are far more successful than anything we use in this country, particularly ibogaine, a psychedelic drug that has shown immense promise (about 60% of those treated kick the habit) but it's illegal in many countries, and many including the U.S. won't even permit scientific research. Sound familiar?

The impaired driving issue could be addressed with use of a gameboy-like device, programmed with a "game" that would test the driver's reflexes, perceptions and appropriateness of actions. I really don't give a damn why a driver is impaired; drugged, drunk or overtired. I just want him/her off the road.

It would also remove the idiocy of legal sanctions against having THC metabolites in urine or blood when there is no intoxication or impairment whatsoever.

GMO weed? No flippin' way. Where'd that come from and how would it be useful? I don't see what it would accomplish besides giving the Monsantos of the world another cash cow and exposing us tokers to who knows what? That's not idealism, it's simple pragmatism. Again, What Would It Accomplish????? Sounds crazy to me.

Of course we'll have to accept some kind of compromise. Some parts of any legislation will have to throw a bone to the puritans or it won't go anywhere, no matter how rational it might be.

Decriminalization was a start but still holds the likelihood of fines and jail time, not to mention that having larger amounts of weed still is a felony. Medpot is another step, it's convincing more and more people that increased cannabis availability won't cause the demise of civilization as we know it. It's still too restrictive and selective.

We're gradually drifting toward a rational approach to mind-altering substaces. There are plenty of good assessments of harm, real and potential. That's a beginning.

I just hope to see the stupid stinking prohibitionists stepped on in my lifetime, the DEA disbanded and pot prisoners freed.

 

[Drift13]

If they GM canna I want no part of it. Just don't trust the (any) goverment to do the right thing. If they are allowed to GM who is to say how they will modify it.
Like the old joke goes.....I'm from the goverment and I'm here to help you....YEA RIGHT

 

[neuroherb]

No point in quoting everybody GM was just a consideration thrown in to get the ball rolling as an example because no doubt if it was legal big business will want in one way or another. The basic premise of what I am asking is what would you consider as a compromise Agaricus and I are both in agreement that whatever reason makes you unfit to drive including the use of cannabis should be an offence and get these drivers off the road. I do know people who claim to be better drivers on cannabis and would argue that point although they have never smoked anything more potent than commercial UK duff shit.

Legalisation is never going to come in the form of any goverment going 'ok you pot heads are right cannabis is the saviour of the universe. Lets vote for it to be the only world religion' and its more likely if it were ever to happen that self production would be limited to a certain THC level and below similar to home brewing while distilation of alcohol is still ilegal.

 

[zymos]

2 plants, side by side, that look pretty much identical. One has 9% THC and is legal, the other has 18% and is not?
Sorry, that's just silly, not to mention impractical from the enforcement point of view. You can tell the difference between a still and a carboy of beer just by looking at them. Plus the reason that some alcoholic beverages are legal to produce at home and others are not isnt because the government decided booze was more harmful than beer, it's all about the excise tax. $$$

What compromise would I accept?
How bout: You can grow it, smoke it, or give it away, but need some sort of permit of you want to sell it.

 

[Hydrosun]

What compromise would I accept?
How bout: You can grow it, smoke it, or give it away, but need some sort of permit of you want to sell it.

Sounds like vag, except you can't get a permit if you want to sell it

 

[neuroherb]

2 plants, side by side, that look pretty much identical. One has 9% THC and is legal, the other has 18% and is not?
Sorry, that's just silly, not to mention impractical from the enforcement point of view. You can tell the difference between a still and a carboy of beer just by looking at them. Plus the reason that some alcoholic beverages are legal to produce at home and others are not isnt because the government decided booze was more harmful than beer, it's all about the excise tax. $$$

What compromise would I accept?
How bout: You can grow it, smoke it, or give it away, but need some sort of permit of you want to sell it.

On the face of it all good, however the give it away and the sell it points could have the same confusion as a THC level since who is to say if I give a buddy some weed and they later contribute towards anyting that there isn't a quid pro quo and the reallly the weed is just being paid for.

If a THC level was set at 15% say then instead of checking at the grow level then seed breeders could be limited to only selling seed strains that match the regs at retail level while selling different srains to those that have received permits for commercial grow ops. Some would obviously grow strains they have from other sources but this would be limited and could actually be policed by a technology gadget if for other reasons you and your grow come to the attention of the regulatory body.

Also had a further thought on GM'ing seeds to turn of the ability to produce further seeds 1/ It would prevent the likes of what has happened in Moscow so I couldn't buy commercial seeds and spread them in a town centre to hopefully start a self supporting patch of weed. I wouldn't leave bottles of vodka arounds kids so why have weed patches in town council owned flower pots. 2/ I was once gifted a bag of seeds because another memebr here gave the nod that I would not be the type of person to steal the genetics. There are many crosses available which are really just crosses of other peoples work, in the IP debated around music etc.. this is more like somebody riping of a melody to create another piece of music then claiming it to be their own. On the site there is a central figure who has an opinion what happened to there C99 strain by another breeder so some of these crosses are really just a theft of IP. If cross strains at a commercial level could not produce seeds then this would protect the breeeders IP. 3/ If GM was to be used in this way to turn of seed production by regulation it would need to be made available to all as a technology within the market suppliers so that gov is not regulating a market advantage to one seed provider.

 

[zymos]

Sorry, just can't get behind the notion of regulating weed by THC levels. I just can't see the point. To use your comparison to alcohol, there are plenty of hard core alcoholics that drink nothing but beer or wine.

You are not going to find a lot of support for the idea of the govt regulating everything by controlling all the seeds and genetically engineering them to limit THC levels.

I also think the IP argument is kind of wrong. Substitute tomatoes or chiles for weed. There are seed exchanges all over the world where people gladly give away or trade heirloom or other prized genetics. People worked just as hard to breed those strains as other people have to breed weed, but they aren't asking $20 a seed, because those vegetables are not illegal.

Interesting thought experiment, I just can't personally agree with a lot of your reasoning or conclusions....

 

[BrnCow]

The drug cops are afraid of losing their jobs so if pot was legalized first, maybe with a sunset law so if their fears of the whole US sitting on a couch , eating, and watching Beavis and Butthead materialized, they could not vote it back into effect. But trying to dissolve the DEA by making all drugs legal is not likely gonna happen. So, IMHO, I say let the fuckers chase the hard drugs and make pot legal for adults. And they should be able to grow 6 plants per adult just like the med patients do. Maybe they sell them a $100 non name id tax stamp/permit to grow renewable yearly. That way they don't have everyone's fucking name that has a permit/stamp. Just have to prove they are over 21 or something...

 

[supermanlives]

full legalization. no compromise at all. free the weed. no strings.

 

[paladin420]

NONE.

I waited to long now,legal or nothing is where I stand.

 

[neuroherb]

Sorry, just can't get behind the notion of regulating weed by THC levels. I just can't see the point. To use your comparison to alcohol, there are plenty of hard core alcoholics that drink nothing but beer or wine.

You are not going to find a lot of support for the idea of the govt regulating everything by controlling all the seeds and genetically engineering them to limit THC levels.

I also think the IP argument is kind of wrong. Substitute tomatoes or chiles for weed. There are seed exchanges all over the world where people gladly give away or trade heirloom or other prized genetics. People worked just as hard to breed those strains as other people have to breed weed, but they aren't asking $20 a seed, because those vegetables are not illegal.

Interesting thought experiment, I just can't personally agree with a lot of your reasoning or conclusions....

Your free to disagree the idea is to start people thinking on what they would compromise and any idea thrown into the pile may or may not be personally agreed with by myself although at present the cannabis community seems unwilling to compromise in anyway as both the main compromises mentioned by Agricus of MMJ and Decriminalisation are compromises made by the state not the pro cannabis community. Making it legal only to sell lower THC strains addresses an argument put forth by UK politicians who all admitted to taking cannabis but then go on to use the excuse modern strains are much more potent something I would disagree with as a user for over 30 years the hash in the UK during the 80's was more potent than any comercial cannabis product today. On the topic of alcohol if it was ilegal today it would not be legalized and the often quoted professor Nut who was the sacked gov advisor did not promote legalization of cannabis on its own he recommended a re-regulation of all substances based on actual harms not moral or political views.

The exchanges you mention freely give the permission of the original breeder it does not involve buying two packs of seeds crossing them and then naming it as your own genetics and thats not my view there is a certain seed company that has been banned in the past form ICMAG Cup events and a hullabaloo generated when a popular ICMAG community member entered one of their strains under a different name so many in the cannabis community are annoyed when strains they work on for decades are taken, turned into a cross and claimed as another breeders work.

So if none of the current examples would be acceptable to yourself what would you accept?

 

[neuroherb]

The drug cops are afraid of losing their jobs so if pot was legalized first, maybe with a sunset law so if their fears of the whole US sitting on a couch , eating, and watching Beavis and Butthead materialized, they could not vote it back into effect. But trying to dissolve the DEA by making all drugs legal is not likely gonna happen. So, IMHO, I say let the fuckers chase the hard drugs and make pot legal for adults. And they should be able to grow 6 plants per adult just like the med patients do. Maybe they sell them a $100 non name id tax stamp/permit to grow renewable yearly. That way they don't have everyone's fucking name that has a permit/stamp. Just have to prove they are over 21 or something...

Plant counts are a reasonable compromise if you ask me for the home grower with permits for commercial organsations that sell into the supply / distribution market. However de regulation of one substance or plant is not going to solve the issues society has with drugs I'm not in the US so I couldn't give a rats ass about the DEA and there would be as many self interested parties on the current pro cannabis / drug side as I doubt any current dealers want legalisation and the cut in their profits its would bring. However Prof Nut again is the one that stated statistically extascy was safer that aspirin or riding a horse and placed herion lower on the substances listed by harm than either tobacco or alcohol.

 

[supermanlives]

they admit they were wrong ,release all prisioners, and fully legalize and we promise not to file a class action lawsuit. LOL

 

[TLoft13]

Neuroherb: The biggest problem i would see with full legalization of all drugs is that then, in theory, the pharma- and chemical industries would be completly free to invent new stuff. Look at their behavior now, they are constantly poisoning the population with their medicaments and 10.000s of unsafe chemicals in basically everything we eat and use. Testing protocolls are not worth the paper they are written on. Look how many medicines turn out to be harmfull or useless despite being "tested". Look how these corporations are held responsible(they aren't.)
Now imagine these psychos are allowed to freely develop Heroin, Speed and Ecxtasy 2.0. TOTALLY safe and tested of course, and if it turns out it's highly addictive afterall...bad luck for you sucker.

 

[supermanlives]

as far as i am concerned our goverment has purposely denied the benefits of marijuana in the favor of pills and drug companies. and has in the process hurt millions and should be held accountable. why does our money say in god we trust. who are we to try and wipe a plant off the planet that this so called god created.i dont believe the goverment should tell me what i can fucking grow. kiss my ass

 

[zymos]

Some seriously twisted logic in this thread.
Don't legalize cause big pharma makes dangerous drugs and they'll get their hands on it?!
Do legalize, but with the expectation that the only seeds legally available will be GMO?


Whatever, I'm with supermanlives - it's a fucking plant, and no body should need permission to grow it.
I guess baby steps have their place, but if you are going to play "what if?" then why start out with a bunch of compromises?

 

[TLoft13]

Some seriously twisted logic in this thread.
Don't legalize cause big pharma makes dangerous drugs and they'll get their hands on it?!
Do legalize, but with the expectation that the only seeds legally available will be GMO?


Whatever, I'm with supermanlives - it's a fucking plant, and no body should need permission to grow it.
I guess baby steps have their place, but if you are going to play "what if?" then why start out with a bunch of compromises?

How about some reading comprehension from your side? Foreseeing problems doesn't equate to "I'm against legalization".

 

[zymos]

This is just some exercise in pessimism- lets imagine all the things that might go wrong!

And then throw in some "solutions" that are just as bad as the "problem"...