For you, Unk : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

Did you ever think you'd see the day? ; )

Wed Jul 10, 7:44 AM ET

By Kate Kelland

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain is expected to brush aside a storm of protest Wednesday and relax its laws on cannabis in the face of a dramatic rise in use of the drug.

Home Secretary David Blunkett is due to make a statement later Wednesday to announce a downgrade of cannabis to a low risk category C drug, making possessing small amounts or smoking it in private a non-arrestable offense.

-- Pammy (, July 10, 2002


And here at home:

Nevada to Vote on Legalizing Marijuana

Tue Jul 9, 3:29 PM ET

By BRENDAN RILEY, Associated Press Writer

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - Voters in Nevada, which up until last year had the nation's strictest marijuana law, will decide in November whether to let adults legally possess small amounts of pot.

State officials said Tuesday that a petition drive to put the measure on the ballot had narrowly succeeded with about 75,000 valid signatures.

Under the proposal, marijuana would be sold in state-licensed shops and taxed like cigarettes and other tobacco products. A distribution system would also be set up to provide low-cost pot for medical uses.

To become law, the change needs voter approval this year and in 2004. But whether it could ever actually take effect is unclear. Federal law bans marijuana possession, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that states cannot make exceptions for medical use.

The new proposal would let adults have up to three ounces of marijuana. Driving under the influence would still be illegal, as would using marijuana in public places.

"The success of our petition drive provides solid evidence that most Nevadans think it's a waste of their tax dollars to arrest people for small amounts of marijuana," said Billy Rogers of Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement.

Law enforcement groups in Nevada are expected to oppose the ballot measure.

"Three ounces is quite a bit," said Lt. Stan Olsen, lobbyist for the Las Vegas police. "If we legalize it, what is next? A lot of people don't use drugs now because they are illegal and they stand to lose in their personal or professional lives if they use."

Until last year, puffing on a single marijuana cigarette in Nevada was a felony punishable by a year or more behind bars. But the stiff penalties were rarely imposed. Lawmakers have since made possession of less than an ounce a misdemeanor.

In 2000, Nevada voters approved the use of medical marijuana.

-- Pammy (, July 10, 2002.

The only reason pot is illegal in the U.S is because of Dupont wanting the gov contracts for its new nylon/synthetic rope during WW2, mostly small to medium farmers had the contracts during that time and had to somehow be displaced. Big biz to our rescue, who do you think subsidized Reefer Madness?

-- capnfun (, July 10, 2002.

Why is this for Unk, is he a pothead? If so, what difference will it make what happens in London to someone who lives in Florida?

-- (duh@duh.duh), July 10, 2002.

No, Unk isn't a pothead. If you don't know why it's for him, then you don't know him very well. The name "duh" fits you.

-- Pammy (, July 10, 2002.

I think that legalizing and licencing *all* drugs is a far smarter way to handle the issue than criminalizing them. All that does is increase the cost, decrease the safety and enrich the criminals, IMHO.

-- Tricia the Canuck (, July 10, 2002.

Thank you Pammy.

Did I ever think I'd see the day...well, yes, I hoped I would. Hoped I would see movenment towards a sane drug policy. Someday most folks will figure out that prohibition comes with an exorbitant price tag; increased crime of all types, political and law enforcement corruption, lives more ruined by policy than by the problem, a seeming never ending increase in invasive police policies and procedures, etc etc etc.

This country survived just fine, prospered in fact, when drugs of ALL types were perfectly legal to obtain without a prescription. I myself have no interest in smoking crack whether it is legal do do so or not. Most every adult I talk to feels the same. I don't know ANYONE who is just WAITING for heroin to be legal so they can run out and buy some, do you? Reforming the drug laws would remove most of the unseemly aspects of drug use and addiction, and would also lead to better and more effective drug rehabilitation treatments, through tax funded treatment programs. Yadda yadda yadda, sometimes I feel like I lecture screen doors on this subject.

Thnx Pammy


-- Uncle Deedah (, July 10, 2002.

Tax-funded treatment programs? I thought I knew Unk, but this is a surprise. Why should my taxes go to help people with no self- discipline get off drugs? What's next? Taxes to help the obese?

-- (wishy@washy.), July 10, 2002.

Let me clarify please, drug sales tax funds. Not general funds. Taxes from drug sales go to drug abuse treatment programs.

Sort of a user fee.

-- Uncle Deedah (, July 10, 2002.

You'd think we would learn from history... 18th Amendment ring any bells? ; )

-- Pammy (, July 11, 2002.

Hey wishy-washy. Go buy a clue. Getting off drugs or alcohol is not a matter of self discipline. Addiction is a disease, and as such you cannot will it away as you could not will away cancer or diabetes.

There is a way to arrest the disease, thought there is no way to cure it. There is always a risk of recidivism.

Drug treatment is the first step to a normal life. I disagree with unk to the effect that it sounds as if he would not use regular tax money for treatment. Through medicaid we do that now, and it takes many addicts off the street and in to the rooms of 12 step programs. It should continue to do so.

I know all this as treatment was my first step back into life 8 years ago. If it were not for the treatment program, I would have been dead for sure. Your simplistic attitude, wishy, is just that- wishful thinking. Addiction is a real disease.

I also agree with Tricia-while this may seem contradictory, it is my belief that ready availability will bring true addicts to their bottom faster.

-- Futureshock (gray@matter.think), July 12, 2002.

you cannot will it away as you could not will away cancer or diabetes.

Au contraire. You are just not thinking good thoughts. You are not doing good affirmations.

Let me help you.

-- (Louise L. Hay @ cancer and gone), July 12, 2002.

FS, speaking from first-hand experience, yes one can overcome drugs and alcohol on their own without checking into the Betty Ford center. I know this because I've done it.

Sorry you are a weaker person than I. No need to get hostile.

-- (you've@got.issues), July 12, 2002.

Oh yeah? You're in denial jess like dumbya-dickwad.


-- (Dumbya@my.stash), July 12, 2002.


If I am the weaker person, why are you hiding behind an anon?

No doubt the 12 step solution is not the only one. It is also no doubt based on many years of experience that "will-power" as you call it has been one of the surest steps to relapse.

I am glad you are sober, however you did it. More people are sober than ever before today because of 12 step programs. The crescendo at which these programs have grown since 1939 is ample enough evidence that it works. Prior attempts at forming programs for addicts had all failed. It is difficult to argue with the success these programs have had.

The problem I see with many who have tried the willpower route is that they are treating the use of drugs and alcohol as the problem, neglecting the fact that it is the underlying personality problems that drive people to use. ANyone can stop using. Some can stay stopped. But those who do not work the steps usually do not change. And change is the key to preventing relapse.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), July 12, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ