That's very sad, what you are willing to do for, or perhaps against, your own people for a market share, or maybe they have other plans, but i don't know what's the use case of drugs other than to dumbificate (to dumbify?) your population
Where will they get the cannabis from? they don't have enough lands, import from the US/Canada i bet? ;)
The purpose of legalisation like this is not to promote drug use, but to ameliorate the negative effects of criminalising drug use. Right now in many countries drugs are easily available almost everywhere, plus we have the grievous negative effects of a damaging war on drugs that we have comprehensively lost from day 1, plus the criminalisation effort obstructs the ability to properly address the health effects of drugs.
I believe the most pragmatic approach is to decriminalise but regulate soft drugs like cannabis. This breaks them away completely from the criminal ecosystem. Next keep the trade in hard drugs illegal, but decriminalise use and possession of small amounts that are actually typical of users. This helps address health and welfare issues, plus if users know they will not be prosecuted, it drives a wedge between them and dealers.
We’re never going to end the drug trade. It as futile as prohibition. What we can do is implement practical policies to mitigate its worst effects.
> Where will they get the cannabis from? they don't have enough lands, import from the US/Canada i bet? ;)
"they don't have enough lands"? Are you sure about that? Given that less than 10% of Germans consume cannabis on a regular basis, I don't think you'd need all that much land to supply them all with generous amounts of weed. Also, since weed is going to be quite a profitable crop, I'm pretty sure some farmers will be eager to cease their corn/wheat/whatever production for it.
I know this true of other languages too, but Germany really loves to do this: use "English" phrases which are either simply wrong or have another meaning than intended, or no clear meaning (here it's pill testing, basically).
I don't know why they do this! It's really irritating as an anglophone immigrant to Germany. German is a real language, they can just say Drogenprüfung, who knows why they don't.
Drogenprüfung would sound like something from before most people were born. It's basically "this is a term of this day and age, not an old one you just haven't heard before". And of course a fake appeal to internationality: everyone (except for those who made it up) suspects that someone more well-traveled might be familiar with the term, can't risk appearing inexperienced. And yes, it's stupid. There's been a pandemic for almost two years now and most people in Germany could still only decipher the term "work from home" by translating its elements one by one.
My experience with Germans in commerce related things is that they want to emulate the successes of the US market and buyin comes from making things sound like they are concepts already used in the US market.
Why do you say it's not legal in the USA? If it's legal in some states, that means that the federal government should allow it. If they were to step in, that would go against the constitution and the current state of legislation (which I think by allowing cultivation of hemp leaves the door open). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States#...
Aren’t all banks regulated by the states themselves? In terms of convenience, having to use a debit card instead of a credit card isn’t very big of a difference.
I would question that assumption but regardless of relative risks, why would any thinking country want to increase the number of intoxicated drivers on the highway which decriminalization will surely do? Why legalize another vice, particularly one which causes lung damage[1], causes neurological and cognitive harm, is generally demotivating, anti-social and can lead to depression [2] ? You don't see this in China. [3]While the west sits back and smokes their weed China will only be too happy to kick its butt economically, militarily, and technolgically. What a sad and wasteful future we deliberately build.
Setting aside your assumption that using drugs like alcohol or weed is a vice, and setting aside your assumptions about China’s intentions, then you aren’t left with much to reply to.
You can find plenty of public information that documents relative levels of health impact from different drugs, so I’ll leave it to you to observe that I wasn’t making an assumption when I shared the fact that cannabis is generally considered to have less negative impact than alcohol.
Your worldview is extremely biased into "productivism"... Why is that what only matters for you is what a society can produce? Militarily, technologically and so on. Would you prefer to live in a society with extremely low levels of freedoms but that can manage to increase their productive output rather than one where you can be a human being and express yourself?
Why do you judge others with such a righteous view of what is a vice and project that view into how whole societies should behave? Even more that you compare it to... China? Why is China your benchmark? Are you afraid that China will take-over your country economically? Are you afraid of something else from China? Why do you care if China does something or not?
It rattles me to think that there are people thinking exactly like you, completely diminishing human existence into how productive one can be based on a very strict (and square) set of parameters.
Wasteful future is exactly what we've built, with China's participation: a steamroller of manufacturing goods and services to be consumed. That is wasteful as fuck, just look at any corporate structure and how it functions, look at how much wasted time, mental energy, creativity and so on goes into what is, in the end of the day, unnecessary.
Our lives are filled with unnecessary things, a drug that isn't that harmful is definitely not the culprit for a society to end in waste.
I don't know, man, I feel that your comment is the condensation of the pointlessness of modern times, thinking about life as humans just as a vessel for productivity is just fucking sad. Your judgment of others while being completely oblivious to this sad bias is borderline infuriating, the self-righteousness exhaling from your comment really rubs off very wrongly.
This would fix one of my biggest issues with Europe! All the pleasures in the world except the ability to get good weed anywhere! Sure all the "cool people" have a supply but its just shitty street stuff where the supply chain is completely broken. Its the same situation in Portugal where people are like "look everyone can have some and they fixed the drug problem forever" yeaaah but what about the supply chain? Like one city in the Netherlands is the only place you can go to right now, and the conversation amongst people all across Europe is so immature. Weed is conflated with the hardest drugs possible, and good luck trying to have a conversation about Sativa over Indica! Big oversight, and yes I am grouping 30 countries together because that's my experience.
Gimme at least one country with California-style recreational shops everywhere.
Looks like Germany will be it! Way to go "legalize all fun things" Green party! Didn't notice they got into the coalition, I kind of noticed when the other coalition didn't get all the votes they were used to, but didn't really put too much thought into it.
The Greens have been pro-legalization for a while but somewhat mixed on a national level because they vary from very progressive to socially conservative state-by-state. Their support for this is genuine but I wouldn't have trusted them to push for it if there had been any risk of resistance.
The SPD tends to be more socially conservative than the Greens (although the party base is extremely mixed). They only proposed a very cautious experimental legalization program during the election and mostly didn't talk about it. They're likely seeing this as a cheap win they can still pin on the other coalition partners if pushed on the issue by conservatives. After nearly two decades of grand coalitions, they seem to mostly let the other two partners do what they want for now.
The FDP may be market extremists but they've been using legalization as a major ticket to attract younger voters for decades now. Their shtick has basically been doing politics focused on big businesses and the extremely rich while marketing themselves as an attractive option for young voters by pushing reasonably popular progressive policies (as long as they don't interfere too much with the economy). Their primary motivation for legalization is likely economical (since the tobacco industry has been pivoting towards cannabis for a while now since lobbying for less tobacco regulation stopped working decades ago) but the kids will think it was a principled stance towards progressivism or liberty or something, so it's a double win.
Note that the article says they want to legalize the controlled sale by licensed shops. This suggests home-growing will likely continue being illegal.
While the legalization is likely a good thing, the article is a bit too trusting when it comes to the supposed motivation not being economical or fiscal. The goal is likely to be able to tax it like cigarettes and wine, and to make it easier for existing cannabis companies (which are mostly already established tobacco companies) to enter the market without fearing price dilution from private growers.
I'll believe it as soon as I hold the first legal buds in my hand. Until then, I'll remain cautiously optimistic.
I think it's still a little fishy that none of the articles mentions anything about the supply chain. Also, nothing about home growing or how DUI will be handled.
26 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 71.4 ms ] threadWhere will they get the cannabis from? they don't have enough lands, import from the US/Canada i bet? ;)
Modern opium war
I believe the most pragmatic approach is to decriminalise but regulate soft drugs like cannabis. This breaks them away completely from the criminal ecosystem. Next keep the trade in hard drugs illegal, but decriminalise use and possession of small amounts that are actually typical of users. This helps address health and welfare issues, plus if users know they will not be prosecuted, it drives a wedge between them and dealers.
We’re never going to end the drug trade. It as futile as prohibition. What we can do is implement practical policies to mitigate its worst effects.
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/legal-ma...
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/07/01/225631...
"they don't have enough lands"? Are you sure about that? Given that less than 10% of Germans consume cannabis on a regular basis, I don't think you'd need all that much land to supply them all with generous amounts of weed. Also, since weed is going to be quite a profitable crop, I'm pretty sure some farmers will be eager to cease their corn/wheat/whatever production for it.
I know this true of other languages too, but Germany really loves to do this: use "English" phrases which are either simply wrong or have another meaning than intended, or no clear meaning (here it's pill testing, basically).
I don't know why they do this! It's really irritating as an anglophone immigrant to Germany. German is a real language, they can just say Drogenprüfung, who knows why they don't.
What English speakers called "cinéma vérité," French speakers called "direct cinema."
As others said: foreign, exotic and important.
But hopefully I added an explanation of why.
Its entertaining to watch.
Because the federal government of the USA is slow to update its laws.
[1]https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effec... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/smoking-too-much-... [3] https://sensiseeds.com/en/blog/countries/cannabis-in-china-l...
You can find plenty of public information that documents relative levels of health impact from different drugs, so I’ll leave it to you to observe that I wasn’t making an assumption when I shared the fact that cannabis is generally considered to have less negative impact than alcohol.
Why do you judge others with such a righteous view of what is a vice and project that view into how whole societies should behave? Even more that you compare it to... China? Why is China your benchmark? Are you afraid that China will take-over your country economically? Are you afraid of something else from China? Why do you care if China does something or not?
It rattles me to think that there are people thinking exactly like you, completely diminishing human existence into how productive one can be based on a very strict (and square) set of parameters.
Wasteful future is exactly what we've built, with China's participation: a steamroller of manufacturing goods and services to be consumed. That is wasteful as fuck, just look at any corporate structure and how it functions, look at how much wasted time, mental energy, creativity and so on goes into what is, in the end of the day, unnecessary.
Our lives are filled with unnecessary things, a drug that isn't that harmful is definitely not the culprit for a society to end in waste.
I don't know, man, I feel that your comment is the condensation of the pointlessness of modern times, thinking about life as humans just as a vessel for productivity is just fucking sad. Your judgment of others while being completely oblivious to this sad bias is borderline infuriating, the self-righteousness exhaling from your comment really rubs off very wrongly.
Gimme at least one country with California-style recreational shops everywhere.
Looks like Germany will be it! Way to go "legalize all fun things" Green party! Didn't notice they got into the coalition, I kind of noticed when the other coalition didn't get all the votes they were used to, but didn't really put too much thought into it.
The SPD tends to be more socially conservative than the Greens (although the party base is extremely mixed). They only proposed a very cautious experimental legalization program during the election and mostly didn't talk about it. They're likely seeing this as a cheap win they can still pin on the other coalition partners if pushed on the issue by conservatives. After nearly two decades of grand coalitions, they seem to mostly let the other two partners do what they want for now.
The FDP may be market extremists but they've been using legalization as a major ticket to attract younger voters for decades now. Their shtick has basically been doing politics focused on big businesses and the extremely rich while marketing themselves as an attractive option for young voters by pushing reasonably popular progressive policies (as long as they don't interfere too much with the economy). Their primary motivation for legalization is likely economical (since the tobacco industry has been pivoting towards cannabis for a while now since lobbying for less tobacco regulation stopped working decades ago) but the kids will think it was a principled stance towards progressivism or liberty or something, so it's a double win.
While the legalization is likely a good thing, the article is a bit too trusting when it comes to the supposed motivation not being economical or fiscal. The goal is likely to be able to tax it like cigarettes and wine, and to make it easier for existing cannabis companies (which are mostly already established tobacco companies) to enter the market without fearing price dilution from private growers.
I think it's still a little fishy that none of the articles mentions anything about the supply chain. Also, nothing about home growing or how DUI will be handled.