Posted on 10/08/2010 7:28:27 PM PDT by massmike
Coffee shops legally selling cannabis have been a feature of Amsterdam’s streets for more than 30 years, both a magnet for younger tourists and a symbol of the Dutch brand of liberal exceptionalism.
But the fragrant haze found in the city’s 200 or so establishments could be dispersed under plans by the incoming government, which is looking to roll back the “tolerance policy” that has allowed such coffee shops to operate since 1976.
Coinciding with a tightening of laws around prostitution – another tolerated industry – the authorities’ new stance on cannabis is raising questions as to whether Dutch society is moving away from laisser-faire traditions, which have included some of the earliest gay-friendly policies in Europe and the provision of free contraception to teenage girls.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
well, so long as they don’t touch the sex workers.../sarc
“The fact that Muslims legislate the moral issues of theft and arson does not make me ashamed to do so as well.”
Yes, I am with you on this. Morality and an adherence to virtue should be intrinsic in law. The basis of Western law is the decalogue which is Mosaic moral law. Drugs and their connotation are always immoral and once made legal and freely available drag the entire society down.
Every single thing you mentioned is morality.
If I take your stuff it is easy for you to make that claim that you have been hurt. But if I smoke a joint it is not so easy for you to make the claim that you are hurt. But you might well want me in jail under either circumstance. You argue that everything I have mentioned is morality, but wanting to put me in jail for something I did to you is on a different moral plane than is your wanting to put me in jail for something I do to myself. You might see everything through the lens of morality, but so does the Taliban.
Smoking dope has not been shown causitive for meyloma. Your dopey post suggests you are smoking something? Cmon admit it.
Marley’s cancer was treatable, but he didn’t have the melanoma on his toe removed because it went against his religious beliefs.
The story I have heard, is that he did become a Catholic on his deathbed, but I’m not sure if this is true or not.
“It’s more than a bit of a shame that the Muslims and the Conservatives are on the same side of these particular issues. I submit that legislating morality is something that it is very dangerous for government to get into the habit of doing.”
In all the years I’ve been coming to Free Republic, this is undoubtedly the most stupid and ridiculous statement ever posted.
Cigarbucks!
Drugs were legal throughout most of US history. The first steps toward national prohibition were not taken until the early 1900's.
I have two simple questions. 1. Was the US immoral for its first 125 years for tolerating drugs? 2. Do you think Congress has legitimate constitutional authority to enact a nationwide prohibition?
Anybody whose been around pot smoker or other junkies can probably attest personally on how responsible and intelligent these individuals are.
I am going to admit that I am not into regulating anything much but the idea that legislating weed would be cool as well as a cash cow kinda died in Amsterdam.
California is already living the dream anyway.That hasn’t made the State any better.
I think what you have to take into consideration is the connotation of the drug. In the past, addiction to drugs existed many times by accident. The presence of opiates in patent medication often created an addiction on the unsuspecting consumer. Most of these were women. However, despite this alarming circumstance, never was the use of narcotics considered acceptable for recreational purposes. I feel that the reason why many of these opiate based drugs were not made illegal in the 19th century was because the people did not think the government had a right to legislate medicine. Remember all of these drugs were considered medication. We are so used to the government getting involved in things today, that it seems unusual that in the past, it would have been construed as excessive interference in a private profession (whether doctoring or selling patent meds.) Anyone using drugs recreationally in the past would have been frowned upon. Today, the use of what became “illegal” drugs is for recreational purposes and hence still carries with it the immorality of criminality and gluttony.
There have been people here who have said that prostitutes and drug users should be executed. So much for the Christian ideal of “he who has not sinned shall cast the first stone.”
Let’s hope that California doesn’t make the same mistake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.