[Skynet]

For 10g marijuana you get 2 years jail.

I talked a bit with an ethnic Russian from Lithuania on Russian language.

The Alkohol lobby is cheering.
Marijuahana is the safest drug immpossible to die.

Alcohole is much more dangerous.


What is your opinion?

[Godstud]

If drugs are illegal, then don't break the law. Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

That could get you executed in some countries. 2 years sounds pretty reasonable in comparison.

[Puffer Fish]

I think many of the drug laws are far too harsh.

I also think "possession" laws are antithetical to individual and civil liberties. If law enforcement can show direct evidence that person sold (or bought) the drugs that were found, it would be more understandable to have tougher punishments.

If drugs are illegal, then don't break the law. Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

In my opinion, saying that people knew what the law was so that justifies the tough punishment, does not justify the punishment. Especially when talking about harsher punishments for less obvious things.
(we're not talking about rape, murder, or robbery)

If I try to rob you and threaten to shoot you unless you give me your money, and you do not hand over the money so I shoot you, that does not make me shooting you much less bad.


I don't think cannabis (marijuana) is an "innocent" drug. True, in some ways it might be less bad than tobacco and alcohol, but overall I think it is worse. Obviously it is not anywhere near as bad as most of the other illegal drugs.

I do not approve of people habitually smoking it, but the Libertarian side of me is hesitant to advocate government intervention (or harsh intervention).

I also have a feeling that most of the people who are most enthusiastic about cannabis are the segment in society who should probably NOT be using it.

Another issue is that hemp was once traditionally widely used in older times to make clothes and fabric. It used to be more common than cotton and has a some advantages. Hemp is the same plant as cannabis but with far lower levels of the active substance THC. In many places hemp grows wild.
The original reason the U.S. made cannabis illegal was due to the perception it was being used by the Mexican ethnicity and responsible for many of the problems of this immigrant group. After that, many other countries in the world followed the lead of the U.S., like with so many other policies.

The U.S. had some pretty harsh laws and punishments against cannabis in the 1980s. Especially in certain states. As far back as the 50s it was seen as socially unacceptable and dangerous, likely to lead to ruin of a person's life, similar to alcoholism but worse. In the late 80s schools were trying to warn children not to use it.

In the U.S. there is now mounting evidence of certain problems in areas where cannabis use is high. Some social problems that can be traced to it, higher rates of theft, homelessness, psychotic breakdowns, and car accidents resulting in injury and higher insurance costs for everyone.
(I'm saying this from anecdotal observation, being in an area where an estimated 1 out of 5, to 1 out of 4 people in the population are using it. It's become more popular than cigarettes. I'd also estimate it's responsible for about 20% of the homeless blight downtown)

[Godstud]

Ignorance is no excuse. In no country in the world does, "I didn't know those were the penalties for breaking the law.", work as a legal defense. I have no pity for people who pretend they didn't know better. It's your responsibility to ensure that what you're doing isn't illegal.

Marijuana is pretty harmless in comparison to alcohol, but if it's illegal, then you do not do it, particularly if the penalties for doing it are high. In most countries it has been decriminalized. That said, there are some that class it as an illegal drug and the penalties can be high to traffic it. eg. Laos.

[JohnRawls]

For 10g marijuana you get 2 years jail.

I talked a bit with an ethnic Russian from Lithuania on Russian language.

The Alkohol lobby is cheering.
Marijuahana is the safest drug immpossible to die.

Alcohole is much more dangerous.


What is your opinion?

Nobody cares if you smoke weed in the baltic, like literally nobody. People do care if you sell it though so you can go to jail if you are found selling.

[Puffer Fish]

Ignorance is no excuse. In no country in the world does, "I didn't know those were the penalties for breaking the law.", work as a legal defense. I have no pity for people who pretend they didn't know better. It's your responsibility to ensure that what you're doing isn't illegal.

It sounds to me like terrorism. I'm sure that's the same thing that the hijackers who launched the attack on the Trade Center twin towers in New York told themselves.

"Do what I demand, or else", and "If you never made an effort to learn what my demands are, too bad for you; that's your fault."


Again, to clarify, we're not just talking about society running based on rules. We are talking about harsh punishments, for crimes that are not totally obviously and indisputably morally wrong. (I guess a little bit of a "natural rights" argument enters into there)

This almost hearkens back to very old days when there were kings and subjects could lose their heads over ridiculous crimes.

[Puffer Fish]

In Malaysia in 2021 a man was sentenced to death by hanging for having 299 grams of cannabis, which might be about the size of a small paper lunch bag.
In the United Arab Emirates, in 2004 an Asian woman was sentenced to death for dealing hashish. Undercover officers caught her with 149 grams of it.
In Singapore, in 2004 a man was hanged for storing 2.7 kilograms of cannabis in an apartment.

[Godstud]

If the country you go to has laws against drugs that are draconian, then don't fucking do drugs!!

If the penalty for using a gun is death, then don't use a gun!

Stop the hyperbolic twaddle. It's childish babbling. Laws with harsh penalties are not terrorism. You can avoid the penalty by not breaking the law.

[Puffer Fish]

Laws with harsh penalties are not terrorism. You can avoid the penalty by not breaking the law.

People can avoid terrorism by giving in to the terrorist's demands and doing what they want.

If a robber kills someone, no one considers it a reasonable excuse if the robber says that person could have avoided being shot if they had handed over the money.

[Godstud]

People can avoid terrorism by giving in to the terrorist's demands and doing what they want.

What an idiotic analogy. Laws are there to protect people from criminals.

Punishments for breaking laws are not terrorism. Society makes laws to protect people, and people who break these laws are punished accordingly. If the punishment seems rather harsh, it might have to do with their culture, or other factors that a person such as yourself can't possibly fathom.

If a robber kills someone, no one considers it a reasonable excuse if the robber says that person could have avoided being shot if they had handed over the money.

Stealing is illegal. Murder is also illegal. neither are "reasonable". That is why they are illegal.

People don't always react rationally when confronted with dangerous situations, and the responsibility falls onto the person making the threats(i.e. the criminal). Also, many people get killed even after they give up money to thieves like this.

I know you want a lawless place where rapists and other people can get away with their crimes. It's just fucking stupid, though and makes you look like a massive fool.

[Rich]

:lol: What an idiotic analogy. Laws are there to protect people from criminals.

No they're not. Laws are made in order to turn people into criminals. Killing someone can turn you into a criminal, but only because laws have been written making a lot of Killing (but not all) a criminal offense.

In Britain laws and rules were rushed into make the whole nation into criminals, the aim being to force total submission to the pharmaceutical industrial complex. Unfortunately for the Liberals they hadn't quite thought things through. The whole country being made into criminals (I'm leaving aside the English / Scottish civil / criminal distinction here for simplicity) meant that the whole of the government and the leaders of the opposition had been turned into criminals, hence people started demanding that they be prosecuted as criminals. The deep state manged to keep Starmer, him being one of their own, from being prosecuted.

But still I think we can say it backfired and could make the Liberals next lock down more difficult to impose.

[Puffer Fish]

But still I think we can say it backfired and could make the Liberals next lock down more difficult to impose.

We should point out that "Liberal" has a very different (and nearly opposite) meaning in the U.S. than it does in the U.K.

"Liberal" in the U.K. only refers to "economically liberal", i.e. conservative party
"Liberal" in the U.S. usually refers to "socially liberal", i.e. progressive party

The extreme irony of course is that the "Liberals" in both countries are not actually very "liberal" when it comes to personal freedom.

[Potemkin]

No they're not. Laws are made in order to turn people into criminals. Killing someone can turn you into a criminal, but only because laws have been written making a lot of Killing (but not all) a criminal offense.

In Britain laws and rules were rushed into make the whole nation into criminals, the aim being to force total submission to the pharmaceutical industrial complex. Unfortunately for the Liberals they hadn't quite thought things through. The whole country being made into criminals (I'm leaving aside the English / Scottish civil / criminal distinction here for simplicity) meant that the whole of the government and the leaders of the opposition had been turned into criminals, hence people started demanding that they be prosecuted as criminals. The deep state manged to keep Starmer, him being one of their own, from being prosecuted.

But still I think we can say it backfired and could make the Liberals next lock down more difficult to impose.

“The more charity there is, the more poverty there is. The more laws there are, the more crime there is.” - Chuang Tzu

@Rich is correct, @Godstud. The purpose of laws is to turn people into criminals, just as the purpose of charity is to turn people into paupers.

[JohnRawls]

What are people even chatting about here? Nobody cares that you smoke weed in Estonia and Baltic states. People do care if you sell weed like in any other country it is not legalised. Getting 2 years for selling drugs is pretty low number. I don't even get it. Normal people do not carry 10g of weed around come on.

[Skynet]

What are people even chatting about here? Nobody cares that you smoke weed in Estonia and Baltic states. People do care if you sell weed like in any other country it is not legalised. Getting 2 years for selling drugs is pretty low number. I don't even get it. Normal people do not carry 10g of weed around come on.

many friends buy 100g for one month just for private consumption.

[JohnRawls]

Weed is 15-20 Euro per Gram here. 100 Grams would be 2000 Euros no normal person would buy that much here for private consumption. It is more or less the same in other Baltic states I think.

[Skynet]

Weed is 15-20 Euro per Gram here. 100 Grams would be 2000 Euros no normal person would buy that much here for private consumption. It is more or less the same in other Baltic states I think.

You get discount 500-600 Euro.

[JohnRawls]

You get discount 500-600 Euro.

I mean yes but the likelihood of anybody selling more than that is low since over 7.5 grams might get you jail time which is how it is defined in Estonia. Nobody will care in Tallinn about it but above is a whole different story.

[Puffer Fish]

:lol: What an idiotic analogy. Laws are there to protect people from criminals.

Society makes laws to protect people, and people who break these laws are punished accordingly.

It seems that is where your logic breaks down.
You presume those particular laws in question are there to protect people from criminals.

Maybe you would like to explain how you believe the law does that in this case.

An argument could be made, of course, but it seems like a very much weaker argument than if we were talking about laws against stealing or assault.

[Godstud]

Laws are also deterrents. My arguments are not weak. Your entire premise is.