Jeremiah, you've got my vote (OOC: of course, I'm from the Netherlands, I also want legalisation here.. 
:rofl: )
:rofl: )-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I don't have a problem with people doing as they like with their own bodies but I think we need to draw a Line. We don't need to legalise it completely. I'm more in favour of a a softly softly approch with decrimalisation of small amounts. Also as I said before that I don't really care what people do with their bodies but also think that t he legal are should not be 21 years as these people would be entring or already in university, do we really want to ruin the future minds and workers of Eutopia therefore I think we should raise this age limit to 30 or at least 25.
Oliver Strasse stood up loudly.
"This is outrageous! How can you possibly support the legalisation of a substance that will damage the lives of so many people and cause so many problems in the deprived and socially unstable parts of our country.
If this is ridiculous piece of legislation, that oversteps the mark by about a mile, gets put to the vote, I urge the General Assemly to strike it down as an afront to the health of our people. We have allowed the use of certain drugs in controlled situations, but the Socialists have clearly taken our agreement to allow medical use of drugs to mean that we support mind adjusting and family destroying substances being freely available to our children, and our vulnerable citizens.
Let me go through the points;
1. Cannabis is a dangerous substance in itself. It can disrupt the control of blood pressure, increasing the risk of fainting and even occasional use is bad for people with heart and circulation disorders, and for those predisposed to schizophrenia. Why exactly do we want to to flood the streets with legalised substances that can aid so dramatically mental health, and physical health problems?
2. Cannabis is a gateway drug. There is much research that suggests that if someone gets addicted to it, they will be considerably more likely to move onto harder, and far more damaging drugs. I am not for one moment suggesting that cannabis is as bad as heroin or amphetamines, but it is a slippery slope to walk down if we give people the legal opening to ruin their lives with harder substances.
3. Cannabis causes profound social problems. Some people may find it acceptable that people are able to do exactly what they want. But the state has a responsibility to protect the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. It will not be the rich and the prosperous who will be ruined by having to sustain an addiction to cannabis. It will be the poor and the despairing. They will not be able to find the funds to pay for all the cannabis we have allowed them to be addicted to. There is a considerable danger that they will be driven to crime to fund their habit. We have a responsibility to the poorest members of society to protect them. Indeed I am surprised that the Socialist Per Olson does not wish to help the poor.
4. A legalisation of one drug only causes confusion. If we send a message to people that it is acceptable to use cannabis - a drug - we are issuing a mixed and confused message to people about the justification for using other drugs. "If Cannabis is alright, why isn't Ecstacy?" We will be asked. The state must be clear in its beliefs. Drugs are wrong and should be outlawed. Let us not confuse people without justification.
The CUE will not back this horrendous piece of legislation.
Oh and another thing. What exactly is Cannabis paraphenalia?"
"This is outrageous! How can you possibly support the legalisation of a substance that will damage the lives of so many people and cause so many problems in the deprived and socially unstable parts of our country.
If this is ridiculous piece of legislation, that oversteps the mark by about a mile, gets put to the vote, I urge the General Assemly to strike it down as an afront to the health of our people. We have allowed the use of certain drugs in controlled situations, but the Socialists have clearly taken our agreement to allow medical use of drugs to mean that we support mind adjusting and family destroying substances being freely available to our children, and our vulnerable citizens.
Let me go through the points;
1. Cannabis is a dangerous substance in itself. It can disrupt the control of blood pressure, increasing the risk of fainting and even occasional use is bad for people with heart and circulation disorders, and for those predisposed to schizophrenia. Why exactly do we want to to flood the streets with legalised substances that can aid so dramatically mental health, and physical health problems?
2. Cannabis is a gateway drug. There is much research that suggests that if someone gets addicted to it, they will be considerably more likely to move onto harder, and far more damaging drugs. I am not for one moment suggesting that cannabis is as bad as heroin or amphetamines, but it is a slippery slope to walk down if we give people the legal opening to ruin their lives with harder substances.
3. Cannabis causes profound social problems. Some people may find it acceptable that people are able to do exactly what they want. But the state has a responsibility to protect the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. It will not be the rich and the prosperous who will be ruined by having to sustain an addiction to cannabis. It will be the poor and the despairing. They will not be able to find the funds to pay for all the cannabis we have allowed them to be addicted to. There is a considerable danger that they will be driven to crime to fund their habit. We have a responsibility to the poorest members of society to protect them. Indeed I am surprised that the Socialist Per Olson does not wish to help the poor.
4. A legalisation of one drug only causes confusion. If we send a message to people that it is acceptable to use cannabis - a drug - we are issuing a mixed and confused message to people about the justification for using other drugs. "If Cannabis is alright, why isn't Ecstacy?" We will be asked. The state must be clear in its beliefs. Drugs are wrong and should be outlawed. Let us not confuse people without justification.
The CUE will not back this horrendous piece of legislation.
Oh and another thing. What exactly is Cannabis paraphenalia?"
"By the way. After this bill has been debated, I would like to ask permission to present a further bill of my own. If that is not too inconvenient for everyone?"
First of all, the reason I support legalization instead of decriminalization is because with legalization the government is able to gain extra revenues. Eutopian businesses would also be given extra revenue. I am not opposed to setting an age limit at say 23 or 25. I said 21 because that is the age associated with alcohol. (I could have said 18, like cigarettes).
Secondly, marijuana is nonaddictive, especially when compared to tobacco. I think it would be best if we compared marijuana to other substances that are already legal in Eutopia. Marijuana is not toxic enough to overdose on, which is another reason why it can be legalized without too much danger. I would suggest that operating a vehicle or heavy machinery while on marijuana to be illegal, in the same way driving while drunk is illegal. That would eliminate almost all of the dangers of marijuana use.
To my friend in the CUE, I have a few arguments. First, we do judge each drug individually. I would hazard to say that most doctors would say that alcohol and tobacco are drugs, and for that matter so is caffeine. It is very easy to draw the line when it comes to drugs. For example, currently alcohol and tobacco are legal while cannabis is not. Line Drawn.
Secondly, marijuana is not a gateway drug that leads to harder substances. As a famous American author wrote, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. The Gateway drug theory has it backwards. The gateway theory states that since most heroin users or cocaine users have also used marijuana, then marijuana is the cause. That is simply not the case. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug, so it makes since for people who have used harder drugs to have also used marijuana.
Finally, I would like to point out to the GA the positive impact that cannabis legalization would have on tourism. I might be going out on a limb, but I don't think that selling cannabis in cafes has hurt Amsterdam's tourism. Think of all the American tourists who would travel to Eutopia to buy cannabis. And while they are here, of course, they would buy other things. Maybe stay in a fancy hotel, that sort of thing.
Secondly, marijuana is nonaddictive, especially when compared to tobacco. I think it would be best if we compared marijuana to other substances that are already legal in Eutopia. Marijuana is not toxic enough to overdose on, which is another reason why it can be legalized without too much danger. I would suggest that operating a vehicle or heavy machinery while on marijuana to be illegal, in the same way driving while drunk is illegal. That would eliminate almost all of the dangers of marijuana use.
To my friend in the CUE, I have a few arguments. First, we do judge each drug individually. I would hazard to say that most doctors would say that alcohol and tobacco are drugs, and for that matter so is caffeine. It is very easy to draw the line when it comes to drugs. For example, currently alcohol and tobacco are legal while cannabis is not. Line Drawn.
Secondly, marijuana is not a gateway drug that leads to harder substances. As a famous American author wrote, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. The Gateway drug theory has it backwards. The gateway theory states that since most heroin users or cocaine users have also used marijuana, then marijuana is the cause. That is simply not the case. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug, so it makes since for people who have used harder drugs to have also used marijuana.
Finally, I would like to point out to the GA the positive impact that cannabis legalization would have on tourism. I might be going out on a limb, but I don't think that selling cannabis in cafes has hurt Amsterdam's tourism. Think of all the American tourists who would travel to Eutopia to buy cannabis. And while they are here, of course, they would buy other things. Maybe stay in a fancy hotel, that sort of thing.
Strasse frowned deeply at the Socialist.
"On so many cases, Per Olson, I beg to differ.
First let us deal with your outrageous little tourism scam. You think that more people will want to come to Eutopia because it has free and liberal drug policies. I hardly think so. You assume that the majority of tourists agree with the sale of drugs. Don't you think that just as many people will be put off by the fact that mind-adjusting smoke spews forth from our cafes and bars? I hardly think that we can pidgeon-hole our visitors into categories as you seem to want to do.
Cannabis is addictive. It may not be to everyone. But it is to a considerable minority. We don't know who these people are, and we cannot means-test our cannabis policy. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we put forward a unified policy against it. And that policy should be to keep it out of the public arena.
Cannabis is a gateway drug. All you are doing is saying that it is a coincidence that people who use harder drugs smoked cannabis. I say that this is irrelevant. The fact that they have moved on to hard drugs from cannabis is proof enough for me.
I notice that you have failed to tackle me on the evidence linking cannabis to mental health defects and further health problems. I see that as a validation of my evidence and put it to the General Assembly that this is reason enough not to pass this ridiculous little bill."
"On so many cases, Per Olson, I beg to differ.
First let us deal with your outrageous little tourism scam. You think that more people will want to come to Eutopia because it has free and liberal drug policies. I hardly think so. You assume that the majority of tourists agree with the sale of drugs. Don't you think that just as many people will be put off by the fact that mind-adjusting smoke spews forth from our cafes and bars? I hardly think that we can pidgeon-hole our visitors into categories as you seem to want to do.
Cannabis is addictive. It may not be to everyone. But it is to a considerable minority. We don't know who these people are, and we cannot means-test our cannabis policy. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we put forward a unified policy against it. And that policy should be to keep it out of the public arena.
Cannabis is a gateway drug. All you are doing is saying that it is a coincidence that people who use harder drugs smoked cannabis. I say that this is irrelevant. The fact that they have moved on to hard drugs from cannabis is proof enough for me.
I notice that you have failed to tackle me on the evidence linking cannabis to mental health defects and further health problems. I see that as a validation of my evidence and put it to the General Assembly that this is reason enough not to pass this ridiculous little bill."
I would ask anyone if it is their opinion that cannabis is more dangerous than the already legal substances of tobacco or alcohol?
So you're saying that we've made one mistake, and the solution is to give up entirely?
Good plan.
Sarcasm aside, I must side with Per Strasse. The legalization of cannabis is a step in the wrong direction.
Good plan.
Sarcasm aside, I must side with Per Strasse. The legalization of cannabis is a step in the wrong direction.
We I do think that we should have a tough stance of it but decriminalise extremely small amounts, so that if someone is found with this extermenely small amount the police can still go about the legal procedures with out having to take this person to court.
Perhaps simply making a small amount found a fine and anymore then that just as illegal? Brings in a tiny bit more cash and will discourage every other student from walking about with some in their possession as well as keep jails and prisons free of people who want to relax a little extra on their downtime.
[OOC: I think it is (using it at least once per month if I got the money ). But I don't think my character should be seconding it in this situation... But I decide ]
I'll second it.
). But I don't think my character should be seconding it in this situation... But I decide ]I'll second it.
"It seems to me as if we've carried out the required discussion. The writer has decided not to amend the legislation, so it would be a good idea to put it to the vote, don't you think?" Strasse smiled broadly. "A chance for us all to condemn this piece of looney-left legislation to the coffin."
Last edited:
OOC: I was unable to access the website yesterday, so I didn't have a chance to put up an amended bill.
I can see that the CLA is going to be defeated, and we all must take our lumps I suppose. I would ask the Assembly how they would feel about a bill decriminalizing a small amount of cannabis, and having a fine for larger amounts? If someone in the UMP wanted to propose such a bill, I would gladly second it. If not, I'll propose one in the next couple of weeks. Let me know what you guys think.
I can see that the CLA is going to be defeated, and we all must take our lumps I suppose. I would ask the Assembly how they would feel about a bill decriminalizing a small amount of cannabis, and having a fine for larger amounts? If someone in the UMP wanted to propose such a bill, I would gladly second it. If not, I'll propose one in the next couple of weeks. Let me know what you guys think.
- Status