Canadian Cannabis Cafes

[holyrebellion]

thanks for the visual.

 

[eom]

yeah, well, I think tan lines are hot.

and I'd have to agree w/skynet --- those laws are put in place for our protection.
sure, we all want to see hot naked chicks, but it's a slippery slope.
just like the belly shirts, it'll be the hot ones at first, but then their friends will follow suit, and pretty soon you've got a city full of naked 400 lb beanbags.

 

[holyrebellion]

yeah, well, I think tan lines are hot.

and I'd have to agree w/skynet --- those laws are put in place for our protection.
sure, we all want to see hot naked chicks, but it's a slippery slope.
just like the belly shirts, it'll be the hot ones at first, but then their friends will follow suit, and pretty soon you've got a city full of naked 400 lb beanbags.

thats very wise of you eom... every tried poetry? 400 lb beanbags and belly shirts would get you top marks at my school
what i dont get (this is kinda the opposite) is those islamic women, covering themsleves from head to toe. anything less is 'too revealing'? man they need mini skirt laws. bad. they need arnie.

 

[Sander]

That's just silly. A civil liberty is anyting that members of society think shoudl be included or excluded? What the fuck does that mean.

Talk about fuzzy headed logic.

Why? Explain for once, don't just state. You haven't given a description of civil liberties either.

Actually I do, but you know my position on guns. In fact I think anyone who sells someone a gun who should have known that it was going to be used in a crime should be held accountable. So yes, smuggling of guns should be illegal and should be sanctioned.

You are not trying to divert this into a gun thread are you?

Certainly not, I was trying to make a comparison (and a bad one a that).
The point is that smuggling marijuana is as illegal as anything, and that our government should do more to prevent the smuggling of marijuana by those Germans, but that it is not the fault of our laws that those Germans break their own laws.

According to who? If Germany wants to keep pot out of it's society as something the Germans think is dangerous, than don't they have the right to think so.

Yes, but again, that's not the point. If we want to include it in our society, don't we have a right to? This works both ways, welsh, which is my point.

= reason to keep it out of a society.

Yet the Germans don't keep alcohol or cigarettes or coffee out of society. Those are all more addictive and more harmful. Interesting, huh?

Ah ha! another diversion- you are mixing alcohol with pot and saying two vices are the same.

No, I'm comparing two things and telling you that alcohol is more addictive and that by illegalising it, the German government is using double standards.

No Sander, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean that pot should be. Pot is also more dangerous than cigerettes too.

No, it isn't. Joints are, because joints are lighted by mixing them with the stuff that is in cigarettes. Use a hash pipe and you're out of harm's way.

and you are off topic by arguing that another person's laws are not just. Don't they have the right to make a law for their own society wihtout you making it easier for people to break it?

Yes. Don't we have a right to make laws for our people? Because you've been arguing the opposite. Double standards, welsh.

And if most of the societies say pot is illegal and harmful, aren't you violating an international consensus.

Again: double standard. This is not harming the citizens nor violating citizen's rights, so this international community has nothing to say about our private laws.

It doesn't matter if the basis of that consensus is wrong-

So basically slavery was right until a majority thought it was wrong?

you are still breaking it using evidence to your benefit. THe majority could marshal counter evidence to the opposite view.

Weaker counter evidence, I might add. But that again is not the point. Countries have a right to decide what their own laws are, period. As long as the citizen's rights are not harmed, the international community has nothing to do with it.

Personally, if you don't have the balls to break the law and smoke a joint than you're a pussy and shouldn't smoke pot to begin with.

Now this is just utter bullshit.

So what, you are saying there are no valid reasons for things that happen? Are you assuming the non-existence of a rational reason for the creation of an institution. Laws need to be legislated and created, which is based on rational action based on certain outcomes. So yes, there is a reason why this law exists, and I am not buying the reason you're giving me.

Why not? I'm the fucking guy LIVING here for crying out loud. You haven't lived here, and you know less about the history of this country than I do. At the time of the legalisation of pot, foreigners coming here to smoke it were pretty much non-existant. The reasons for legalising pot were that it was being done anyway, and that the government could just as well make a profit through taxes off of it, then. YOu just stubbornly, without any reason, refuse to accept this and haven't shown a SINGLE counter-point to this.

No, my point was that civil liberities change with the time.

Which was the reason for my loose definition. Really, your double logic is starting to annoy me.

It used to be against the law to form a union because it violated the freedom to contract. It used to be against civil liberities to write a law that infringe certain rights to property because those rights created pollution- but that changed too.

Civil liberties are not written in stone but change depending on social-economic contexts.

Your point being?

What "natural" state of affairs? The natural state of affairs, according to Hobbes, was a state of anarchy were life was nasty, brutal and short.

Indeed. And the point of laws was to regulate this, but the point of laws was also to have as few as possible. before the concept of pot, there was no reason to have pot. That's why I referred to it as the natural state of affairs. Now answer my point.

This "natural" position you are arguing is not an inherent position but one done by action. Even if a law changed so that it no longer applied, the end of that law would require rational action through legal institutions- no natural state.

Again: the point of laws is too have as few as possible and regulate only the things requiring regulation.

Hardly. I think the Dutch are making a profit in tourism and taxs on this, and thus don't want to end the law. They profit off the addiction and use/abuse of others.

Bwaha. Bullshit. The amount of people doing this are too few in number to change this. The current coalition in office even has, in part, a stance against hash.
The amount of people making money off of this is too small to influence the decision making process.

YOu still have yet to explain to me how a bunch of idiots who have nothing better to do than smoke their brain cells away on grass is a good thing and a civil liberty that we should die to defend.

I never said we should die for it.
I'm saying it's a good thing because people should be allowed to toke away as much as they want. It's their choice, and they should be allowed to make it.
As well as that, it's not harmful. That's the number one argument.

But the question is
(1) Why to the Dutch legalize pot- and the "because it's a civil liberty" thing is bullshit.

No, it isn't.

(2) how in the hell is opening up a pot house in canada really a civil liberty? Freedom of speech, association, voting, fucking, baring tits, ok? But smoking a joint?

The question should really be "why not".

 

[Wooz]

Slander, are you drunk or have you just incredibly screwed up the "quote" tags?

 

[holyrebellion]

Quote count: ....21 thats gotta be an nma record.

btw wooz, you've quite the skill with a camera i notice. some nice photos there. 8)

 

[SuAside]

Quote count: ....21 thats gotta be an nma record.

euhm

no



anyhow sander: tl;dr, prolly will tonight when i got more time on meh hands.

 

[holyrebellion]

Quote count: ....21 thats gotta be an nma record.

euhm

no



anyhow sander: tl;dr, prolly will tonight when i got more time on meh hands.

there... have been more? *faints*

 

[Murdoch]

Are you kidding? You should see the debates CCR and Sander have sometimes. Those conversations are so full of quotes and hot air they might spontaneously combust!

 

[holyrebellion]

looks like whoever designed the

fuction is gonna be a rich bastard....

 

[Wooz]

Luckily, not everything in the world is run by overly greedy capitalist bastards, and you don't need to pay to use the quote tag.

 

[holyrebellion]

its becoming that way, unfortunately. I went out yesterday, had to use the public toilets. 10c per toilet paper.

*edit i had no money with me.

*edit2 should've just unloaded a shit in their foyer.

 

[Ozrat]

Could you guys please unload your shit in a different thread elsewhere? We're trying to have a discussion here, not posting our random thoughts.

 

[welsh]

euhm

no



anyhow sander: tl;dr, prolly will tonight when i got more time on meh hands.

All L33t speakers are to be shot on sight.

Why? Explain for once, don't just state. You haven't given a description of civil liberties either.

Yes, but I am not the one foolish enough to say that smoking a joint is a civil liberty.

Are you suggesting, then that everyone has the right to do something harmful to themselves without any government regulation? Is that your civil right? If so than why? Or are there limits and if there are limits- where do those limits end.

The point is that smuggling marijuana is as illegal as anything, and that our government should do more to prevent the smuggling of marijuana by those Germans, but that it is not the fault of our laws that those Germans break their own laws.

Ok, but that's not the point either. Laws are parts of the legal institution of a nation, and institutions are systems for the mobilization of bias. Laws don't come out of thin air but are drafted to protect interests or support other causes.

My question was "who is benefitting from this law." Someone is benefitting from this and making a profit, and is protected under the cloud of soveriegn Dutch law. That the law exists is less relevant than the fact that the persons who benefit from it do so at the expense of neighboring societies.

And that's the problem. The law in holland allows people to benefit from crimes committed in other countries which the dutch can forceseeably anticipate happening. Yet the Dutch do nothing about it except yell out "civil rights!"

Nonsense. You don't have a civil right to cause yourself injury nor is that civil right superior to a social right to be free from the dangerous activity self-inflicted by individuals that have harmful affects upon that broader society. In fact, it is the individual's willingness to cause injury to self and others that justifies the intervention of the state to protect social and public safety.

When you say it's a civil right, than that civil right has to stand above the interests of society's right to be free from the harmful consequences.

That's why civil rights are often curtailed. We have the freedom of speech as a civil right, or the freedom to practice a faith- but one does not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre or commit slander, or to commit human sacrifices to Cthulhu.

Is smoking dope a civil right? Or is it a limited civil right?

Yes, but again, that's not the point. If we want to include it in our society, don't we have a right to? This works both ways, welsh, which is my point.

No, you are missing the point Sander. What I am saying is that calling this a civil right is an abuse of the idea of a civil right. For example, people have the right not to be exposed to the second-hand smoke of cigerette smokers, because they have the right to be free of injurious agents, including those that cause cancer. Why is smoking dope a civil right? It's not unless you want a much broader definition of a right than exists now.

Furthermore, I am saying that calling it a civil right masks the fact that people are profitting from this activity and want it legal because the legality of it protects them from sanction because their activity has harmful consequences.

Laws exist for reasons. That the Dutch allows this suggests that they don't care what the consequences are on other societies as long as they get to either (1) profit from it, or (2) mellow out their population- which as suggested before is a nice way to control the violence of young people.

Yet the Germans don't keep alcohol or cigarettes or coffee out of society. Those are all more addictive and more harmful. Interesting, huh?..... No, I'm comparing two things and telling you that alcohol is more addictive and that by illegalising it, the German government is using double standards.

Not the point Sander. If the Germans want to regulate coffee or alcohol or tobacco they can. It's not a civil right to use those substances. They don't because those industries are protected and the people would throw a shit fit if the government tried to.

So again you have the issues of profit and social peace as being the driving reasons for the legality of those substances. But note that those substances are legal in every other European country, so the enforcement of such a sanction would also be very difficult to achieve and would make German dealers uncompetitive. Germans would buy from French or Italians.

And there lies the causal mechanism for the Dutch- they profit from the harmful consequences that their products have on other societies.

That alcohol or tobacco are more harmful (according to some studies) is not the point. Two wrongs don't make a right. They are both harmful vices. Legalizing pot just adds one to the mix.

Yes. Don't we have a right to make laws for our people? Because you've been arguing the opposite. Double standards, welsh.

Hardly, what I am suggesting is that you don't take "law making" or "civil rights" for face value and ask yourself what's at stake here, and why these laws are so important.

Same kind of analysis needs to be done for gay rights, woman's rights, and a variety of different laws.

Again: double standard. This is not harming the citizens nor violating citizen's rights, so this international community has nothing to say about our private laws.

Double standards? Come on, illegal sales of narcotics are connected to a host of crimes, and are considered illegal for the harmful affects they often have on a society.

I am not disputing whether the law is valid. Frankly I support legalized grass. But the point I am making is that the Dutch are profitting by the sales of drugs to foreigners, regardless of the harmful consequences those drugs are said to have on neighboring society. Whether you think it's not having any harmful affect runs counter to the sentiments by other countries that think it does.

If your country is harboring a trade which has harmful consequence on its neighbors, is profitting from that trade, don't you think the neighbors have reason to be pissed off?

Personally, if you don't have the balls to break the law and smoke a joint than you're a pussy and shouldn't smoke pot to begin with.

Now this is just utter bullshit.

No actually I believe that. Smoking pot is anti-establishment, and that's one of the reasons it's fun.

So what, you are saying there are no valid reasons for things that happen? Are you assuming the non-existence of a rational reason for the creation of an institution. Laws need to be legislated and created, which is based on rational action based on certain outcomes. So yes, there is a reason why this law exists, and I am not buying the reason you're giving me.

Why not? I'm the fucking guy LIVING here for crying out loud. You haven't lived here, and you know less about the history of this country than I do. At the time of the legalisation of pot, foreigners coming here to smoke it were pretty much non-existant. The reasons for legalising pot were that it was being done anyway, and that the government could just as well make a profit through taxes off of it, then. YOu just stubbornly, without any reason, refuse to accept this and haven't shown a SINGLE counter-point to this.

Boy, aren't you hot under the collar.

Sander- laws exist for reasons, are sustained for reasons, and favor or disfavor people. Laws have economic consequences.

Which was the reason for my loose definition. Really, your double logic is starting to annoy me.

Then stop being so pissy and use your head for a change.

Keep it simple-
"Why is smoking pot a civil liberty"
"Who benefits from this law"
"What is the responsibility of a country that profits from a trade that neighbors feel creates harmful consequences on neighboring citizens."

Indeed. And the point of laws was to regulate this, but the point of laws was also to have as few as possible. before the concept of pot, there was no reason to have pot. That's why I referred to it as the natural state of affairs. Now answer my point.

No- the natural state of affairs is for a government that has superior use of repressive violence to do anything it wants to profit the rulers. It is the natural state of affairs for countries to overtax, and to regulate and control all opposition and repress.

There is no "natural right that laws be as few as possible," because no natural state of a social contract ever existed.

The natural order is that violence prevails and who controls violence wins. THis explains the rather brutal history and why it took so long for mankind to come up with democratic government.

Civil liberties never existed until leaders were constrained to bargain with subordiate classes so that rights were exchanged for taxes and loyalty. That's where civil liberties come from.

Bwaha. Bullshit. The amount of people doing this are too few in number to change this. The current coalition in office even has, in part, a stance against hash.

I know very few people that would go to Amsterdam over the SOuth of France but for the drugs.

The amount of people making money off of this is too small to influence the decision making process.

Really, out of curiousity where does all this dope come from if it's illegal all over the world to grow this crap? Is not the participation in trade of illegal substances in other countries not criminal?

I never said we should die for it.
I'm saying it's a good thing because people should be allowed to toke away as much as they want. It's their choice, and they should be allowed to make it.
As well as that, it's not harmful. That's the number one argument.

A civil liberty that is not worth dieing for? Oh that's a good one.
That it's not harmful is silly.
That people can do what they want is the reason why laws exist in the first place. Because laws constrain individual action for the collective good.

But the question is
(1) Why to the Dutch legalize pot- and the "because it's a civil liberty" thing is bullshit.

No, it isn't.

(2) how in the hell is opening up a pot house in canada really a civil liberty? Freedom of speech, association, voting, fucking, baring tits, ok? But smoking a joint?

The question should really be "why not".[/quote]

This is becoming a
"is so"
"Is not"
"Is so"
"is not"

Bullshit argument.

Sander, you are a better thinker than this.

 

[alec]

Really, out of curiousity where does all this dope come from if it's illegal all over the world to grow this crap?

A great deal of it comes from Belgium (fact).

And it's not illegal all over the world: it's legal to own some plants (2? 3? I forget) in Belgium. I have three (hydroponics, which I'll harvest by the end of October btw).

I don't want to get into this discussion, though.

*rolls another one*

 

[Ugly John]

OK i didn'T want to get into this discussion because

1) Sander tl:dr
2) Ozrat, tl;dr
3) welsh tl;dr
4) my attention span isn't that long
5) Thank god CCR isn't here to argue with you guys

We talking CANADA!!!!!

i don't give a crap if it's been done someplace else in the world, we're living in a frozen wasteland, where global warming doesn't work fast enough. This is MY yard, MY country (soyz and Ozrat, you are both late on your rent)

The hot topic in canadian politics is the decriminalization of pot. A topic that most people fail to grasp.
It's simple, IF they do decriminalize it, it's still illegal, just not a criminal act anymore. Hence canadis café are far from being open for more than a day (with police taking pictures of teh clientele right outside the door.
It has been tried in Montréal, and they failled miserably.

My two cents.

 

[Murdoch]

So if its not a criminal act, what are the repurcussions of being caught with it?

 

[SuAside]

probably means you can smoke it privately without problems, but not in public or with minors around. it also means you still can get arrested for dealing or having big ammounts of it on your person. pretty much means that the average normal user wont be hassled anymore, but that about it.

 

[Sander]

Yes, but I am not the one foolish enough to say that smoking a joint is a civil liberty.

Why is it foolish? Really, explain it, damnit.

Are you suggesting, then that everyone has the right to do something harmful to themselves without any government regulation? Is that your civil right? If so than why? Or are there limits and if there are limits- where do those limits end.

Yes. Tell me, why shouldn't one be allowed to harm oneself? If one is considered fully accountable for their own actions, one should also be considered to be wise enough to do whatever you want to your own body. As long as you do it voluntarily (and while sane), there should be no restrictions as to what you are allowed to do to your own body.

Ok, but that's not the point either. Laws are parts of the legal institution of a nation, and institutions are systems for the mobilization of bias. Laws don't come out of thin air but are drafted to protect interests or support other causes.

My question was "who is benefitting from this law." Someone is benefitting from this and making a profit, and is protected under the cloud of soveriegn Dutch law. That the law exists is less relevant than the fact that the persons who benefit from it do so at the expense of neighboring societies.

The people benefitting are the coffeeshop owners, and probably the government from the sales-tax over marijuana.
That, however, doesn't matter, because this only means that the government is doing more to protect this "right" of ours.

And that's the problem. The law in holland allows people to benefit from crimes committed in other countries which the dutch can forceseeably anticipate happening. Yet the Dutch do nothing about it except yell out "civil rights!"

Note that I've been saying we should do as much as possible to ensure that those Germans don't use our laws to break theirs (eg. allowing to buy pot, as long as they smoke it on the spot), as long as it doesn't go at the expense of what the Dutch citizens are allowed to do.

Nonsense. You don't have a civil right to cause yourself injury

Why not. Really, explain that to me. It's my body, I don't owe it to anyone to not injure it.

nor is that civil right superior to a social right to be free from the dangerous activity self-inflicted by individuals that have harmful affects upon that broader society.

Give me a fucking break, welsh. Those people could just as well become drunks, or they could do nothing. There's no law against being unemployed, now is there?

In fact, it is the individual's willingness to cause injury to self and others that justifies the intervention of the state to protect social and public safety.

Get this: smoking pot does not harm others.

When you say it's a civil right, than that civil right has to stand above the interests of society's right to be free from the harmful consequences.

It does.

That's why civil rights are often curtailed. We have the freedom of speech as a civil right, or the freedom to practice a faith- but one does not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre or commit slander, or to commit human sacrifices to Cthulhu.

You need to draw a line between harming oneself and harming others. Rousing speech can harm others indirectly, slander harms others and human sacrifices harm others even worse. But harming oneself is not happening in any of those cases.

No, you are missing the point Sander. What I am saying is that calling this a civil right is an abuse of the idea of a civil right. For example, people have the right not to be exposed to the second-hand smoke of cigerette smokers, because they have the right to be free of injurious agents, including those that cause cancer. Why is smoking dope a civil right? It's not unless you want a much broader definition of a right than exists now.

It isn't a basic civil right, but a basic civil right is the ability to do yourself whatever you want, as long as you are sane and don't harm others.

Furthermore, I am saying that calling it a civil right masks the fact that people are profitting from this activity and want it legal because the legality of it protects them from sanction because their activity has harmful consequences.

Okay, this whole "it's harmful"is getting real fucking annoying. Understand this: IT IS NOT HARMFUL TO OTHERS!

Laws exist for reasons. That the Dutch allows this suggests that they don't care what the consequences are on other societies as long as they get to either (1) profit from it, or (2) mellow out their population- which as suggested before is a nice way to control the violence of young people.

*smack*
You haven't been here, have you? All of the debates (including the opposition's) have revolved around "The Germans have no right to interfere in our laws" NOT around "we're making a profit" because the profit made is minimal.

Not the point Sander. If the Germans want to regulate coffee or alcohol or tobacco they can. It's not a civil right to use those substances.

Indeed.

They don't because those industries are protected and the people would throw a shit fit if the government tried to.

Indeed. Now the same thing is the case in the Netherlands with pot. If pot was to be banned, the outrage would be humongous here. I dare bet that the current largest party could get banning pot through(which is what they want), but this WOULD mean that
they'd get a lot less votes the next time in office. The outrage would be huge.

So again you have the issues of profit and social peace as being the driving reasons for the legality of those substances.

*smack*

But note that those substances are legal in every other European country, so the enforcement of such a sanction would also be very difficult to achieve and would make German dealers uncompetitive. Germans would buy from French or Italians.

Right!

And there lies the causal mechanism for the Dutch- they profit from the harmful consequences that their products have on other societies.

*sigh*
You really refuse to understand this, don't you? You're just a silly person not being able to look beyond "profit=driving force". Fucking hell, I don't know whether it's your being American or not, but the mere fact that you won't believe me when I say that there would be an outrage if pot was illegalised, and that that's the main reason to not do that, simply means that you're arrogant enough to think you know better than a citizen of the Netherlands what goes on here.

That alcohol or tobacco are more harmful (according to some studies) is not the point.

There are no (valid) studies showing the opposite.

Two wrongs don't make a right. They are both harmful vices. Legalizing pot just adds one to the mix.

It.is.not.harmful!

Hardly, what I am suggesting is that you don't take "law making" or "civil rights" for face value and ask yourself what's at stake here, and why these laws are so important.

Same kind of analysis needs to be done for gay rights, woman's rights, and a variety of different laws.

I'm saying one simple thing, and nothing else: there is no valid reason to not allow citizens to smoke pot, and, furthermore, the Germans have no right to interfere in OUR private laws.

Double standards? Come on, illegal sales of narcotics are connected to a host of crimes, and are considered illegal for the harmful affects they often have on a society.

Selling dope to Germans isn't illegal. The Germans smuggling it over their borders is. The Dutch don't commit ANY illegal acts in this matter.

I am not disputing whether the law is valid. Frankly I support legalized grass. But the point I am making is that the Dutch are profitting by the sales of drugs to foreigners, regardless of the harmful consequences those drugs are said to have on neighboring society. Whether you think it's not having any harmful affect runs counter to the sentiments by other countries that think it does.

If your country is harboring a trade which has harmful consequence on its neighbors, is profitting from that trade, don't you think the neighbors have reason to be pissed off?

Yes. But they do NOT have a right to demand anything, they do have a right to ask for our assistance in the matter, and we SHOULD give our full assistance and help as much as possible.

No actually I believe that. Smoking pot is anti-establishment, and that's one of the reasons it's fun.

Not here. Most people here smoke joints because they like it, just like they drink alcohol because they like that.

Boy, aren't you hot under the collar.

Sander- laws exist for reasons, are sustained for reasons, and favor or disfavor people. Laws have economic consequences.

That doesn't mean that when it was established this law was considered to be useful for the added money from foreigners, because it wasn't.

Keep it simple-
"Why is smoking pot a civil liberty"

Because harming yourself, as long as it doesn't harm others and you are sane, is (or at least should be) a civil liberty.

"Who benefits from this law"

An extremely small percentage of the Dutch population.

"What is the responsibility of a country that profits from a trade that neighbors feel creates harmful consequences on neighboring citizens."

To assist in stopping the other citizens to commit those crimes. Not to change their laws for it.

No- the natural state of affairs is for a government that has superior use of repressive violence to do anything it wants to profit the rulers. It is the natural state of affairs for countries to overtax, and to regulate and control all opposition and repress.

There is no "natural right that laws be as few as possible," because no natural state of a social contract ever existed.

No, but it is the premiss on which laws are based. They are, in modern society, based on allowing everything, and then slowly excluding the things that need to be excluded, not the other way around.

The natural order is that violence prevails and who controls violence wins. THis explains the rather brutal history and why it took so long for mankind to come up with democratic government.

Civil liberties never existed until leaders were constrained to bargain with subordiate classes so that rights were exchanged for taxes and loyalty. That's where civil liberties come from.

Really?

I know very few people that would go to Amsterdam over the SOuth of France but for the drugs.

So? There are very few people making a profit from this.

Really, out of curiousity where does all this dope come from if it's illegal all over the world to grow this crap? Is not the participation in trade of illegal substances in other countries not criminal?

This is one of the things that's been annoying me: I don't know the exact regulations in regard to the supply of dope to coffeeshops. (I've been trying to look them up, but no luck so far)

A civil liberty that is not worth dieing for? Oh that's a good one.

Why? Smoking pot in itself is not a civil liberty, the ability to do to oneself whatever one wants, as long as one is of sane mind and isn't harming others in the process, is. (and it's worth dying for)

That it's not harmful is silly.

No, it isn't.

This is becoming a
"is so"
"Is not"
"Is so"
"is not"

Bullshit argument.

Sander, you are a better thinker than this.

I think you're a beter thinker than this. The reason it's becoming such a childish thing is that YOU refused to give arguments. "It's a civil liberty is a bullshit argument" is a statement, not a justification.

 

[Ugly John]

So if its not a criminal act, what are the repurcussions of being caught with it?

You get arested for possession anyway, but you do not get a criminal file and anything over 3 grams and you get a rather large fine...up to 2000$.... that is if the law passes.