Amsterdam's Green party wants ecological marijuana

Puffin13 · Post by **Puffin13** » Tue 25th Aug 2009 06:03 am

Amsterdam's Green party wants ecological marijuana
24 Aug 2009

Amsterdam - Growing cannabis should be legalized, but only if done ecologically, according to a plan published Monday by Amsterdam's Green Party. Presenting its party programme for next year's local elections, the Green Party said that only if the Netherlands fully liberalized its drug policy, could it regulate the industry and reduce drug- related crime.

The sale and consumption of so-called soft drugs such as marijuana is legal in the Netherlands, but the growing of cannabis, from which marijuana is derived, is not.

The Green Party says that only cannabis farmers who grow their crop ecologically should be licensed.

The Green Party says a lack of regulation is the reason why the marijuana that is currently sold in so-called "coffee shops" often contains dangerously high percentages of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the substance that gives the drug its potency.

Source

Uncle Ron · Post by **Uncle Ron** » Tue 25th Aug 2009 06:52 pm

I hope the Green Party is successful, although you are slightly mistaken about the legality of soft drugs such as marijuana. I refer you to the following link which is the European Legal Database on Drugs (ELDD)
http://eldd.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/i ... uageISO=EN

You will see that marijuana is illegal although tolerated. I make this point because I want people to understand that at any time, the Dutch Government can close coffee shops, and arrest people for possession regardless of amount. Some important points to remember.

For the casual observer, travel around The Netherlands beginning in mid September through late October and you will notice a dramatic increase in Police activity. Why? Because it's harvest time, and "The Man" is on the prowl.
Peace

Whitesox · Post by **Whitesox** » Thu 27th Aug 2009 01:05 pm

This is a horriable thing, I love my thc in my bud, thats what makes it so flameeeeeeee. Amsterdam bud is the best in the world and will stay the best in the world. I think there gonna just fix up the legal front door illegal back door.

Hammy · Post by **Hammy** » Sat 29th Aug 2009 12:07 am

Can't be legalised, the UN say so. Anyone who wanted to fully legalize either the growth or use of cannabis would have to leave the UN or get it's central drug policy changed. However, remember that there are big differences between legalisation, decriminalisation and toleration.

Uncle Ron · Post by **Uncle Ron** » Sat 29th Aug 2009 04:56 am

Response to Hammy:
The UN, or League of Nations as it was once called, has absolutely no power over any sovereign nation, period. The UN can pass sanctions against a country, but that really doesn't work, just ask Cuba. The UN has sanctions placed against them since Castro took power in the 50's, and still they(Cuba) exist. Saddam Hussein and Iraq had UN sanctions placed against them as well, and we all know how that has been sorted.
"Can't be legalized" followed by leave the UN or change their policy makes no sense. If cannabis can't be legalized, then leaving or changing policy doesn't change the legality, eh? Again, the UN has no power.
I do however understand the meaning of your comment on remembering the differences between legislation, decriminalization, and toleration (tolerance). People tend to believe and pass on BS that they heard, most from unreliable sources ("Birthers" in the US for example), what a sad joke.
Peace

Pauli Wallnuts · Post by **Pauli Wallnuts** » Sat 29th Aug 2009 05:07 pm

Dirty Uncle Ron wrote:Response to Hammy:
The UN, or League of Nations as it was once called, has absolutely no power over any sovereign nation, period. The UN can pass sanctions against a country, but that really doesn't work, just ask Cuba. The UN has sanctions placed against them since Castro took power in the 50's, and still they(Cuba) exist. Saddam Hussein and Iraq had UN sanctions placed against them as well, and we all know how that has been sorted.
"Can't be legalized" followed by leave the UN or change their policy makes no sense. If cannabis can't be legalized, then leaving or changing policy doesn't change the legality, eh? Again, the UN has no power.
I do however understand the meaning of your comment on remembering the differences between legislation, decriminalization, and toleration (tolerance). People tend to believe and pass on BS that they heard, most from unreliable sources ("Birthers" in the US for example), what a sad joke.

Peace

which country in their right mind would legalise it for a bunch of hippies (& at the same time sink the superpowerful pharmaceuticals) & risk sanctions, in todays globalized world sanctions really do destroy a countries economy, look at iraq(before war),north korea, zimbabwe, even cuba is still suffering, look at how hard libya have worked to be brought back into the fold

happydaze777 · Post by **happydaze777** » Sat 29th Aug 2009 05:34 pm

Dirty Uncle Ron wrote:Response to Hammy:
The UN, or League of Nations as it was once called, has absolutely no power over any sovereign nation, period. The UN can pass sanctions against a country, but that really doesn't work, just ask Cuba. The UN has sanctions placed against them since Castro took power in the 50's, and still they(Cuba) exist. Saddam Hussein and Iraq had UN sanctions placed against them as well, and we all know how that has been sorted.
"Can't be legalized" followed by leave the UN or change their policy makes no sense. If cannabis can't be legalized, then leaving or changing policy doesn't change the legality, eh? Again, the UN has no power.
I do however understand the meaning of your comment on remembering the differences between legislation, decriminalization, and toleration (tolerance). People tend to believe and pass on BS that they heard, most from unreliable sources ("Birthers" in the US for example), what a sad joke.
Peace

I was under the impression most countries had signed up to international agreements about drugs, making legalization a lonely and troubled route to go down, or effectively taken their decision making powers on this subject away. This is why some governments have opted for the decimalisation route which makes as little sense as prohibition. I mean where do the drugs come from when they are decimalised? (but still illegal). There are some interesting challenges in the UK high courts at the moment, on a point of law regarding the misuse of drugs act. Cannabis may not actually fall under the umbrella of this act as it causes nominal harm to the community, a reason this act was passed in the first place. It would be fantastic if we could beat the system at its own game and argue on a point of law that cannabis should not be classed under the misuse of drugs act!

Uncle Ron · Post by **Uncle Ron** » Sat 29th Aug 2009 07:18 pm

Reply to Pauli Wallnuts:
I hear you, and unfortunately mainstream moralists still think in terms of cannabis users as hippies. Ask anyone in opposition to describe what a cannabis user looks like, and they would probably describe someone from the 1960's. How typically ignorant!
I understand that in today's global economy, having sanctions and embargoes will definitely hurt, but the economy will recover, and then what? Sooner or later, the ignorant will tire and give up, we must prevail.

Reply to happydaze777:
There is only one absolute in our lives, and that is death. Signing an agreement is not absolute, just ask the Brits prior to WWII when PM Chamberlain returned from meeting with Hitler with a treaty proclaiming that peace was at hand. We all know how that worked out!! History is full of broken treaties, agreements, and promises, so what makes this international agreement any different? Last example, the agreement to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, that one has really worked well, yes? Lets ask North Korea how sanctions have prevented them from not only developing nuclear weapons, but delivery methods as well. Fail.

So, as it always has been and always will be, we the people must bring change. The change will come when we the people vote out the old guard and vote in people who truly represent the people.
Wait, I must be tripping, politicians doing the peoples work? I forgot, they only work for the rich and powerful. My baaaaaad.
Peace

happydaze777 · Post by **happydaze777** » Sat 29th Aug 2009 08:28 pm

Whilst I agree such treaties and international agreements amy not be worth the paper they were first written on, governments are still extremely reticent to go against such treaties as it could weaken all of the other international agreements entered into. The Control of International drugs, requires all countries to have certain substances illegal. Good read and more info here…
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jUZJ ... ws&f=false

Uncle Ron · Post by **Uncle Ron** » Sun 30th Aug 2009 05:57 am

I clicked on the link which led me to an article that only mentions opiates. I support the idea/theory/fact (choose one) that in order for any international agreement to be successful, all participating nations must uphold the tenets of said agreement. The problem with this agreement are the nations that have decriminalized cannabis to a level that is one step away from legalization (The Netherlands, Mexico), and the US States that have legislation legalizing the use of cannabis for medical necessity. The agreement should contain such drugs as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and similar narcotics, not cannabis. The deadliest of drugs will most likely never make any banned substance list, and those drugs are nicotine and alcohol. Both are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year compared to thousands due to crime or over-dose of narcotics. Fail.

If a country has free elections (read democracy), and a majority of the people want something a certain way, and elected officials decide differently, what type of political system is this? Not a democracy, not communism, not even socialism, but a freely elected dictatorship.
Welcome to the United States!
Peace

Ingwey Gooblebogger · Thu 3rd Sep 2009 03:31 pm

....just ask Cuba.....

I think the more apt reply would be "Just ask the US of A".
If you are big enough and a bully then you can get away with anything. The UN has proved this point time and again.

Secondly, any country could opt of the UN treaty on narcotics, with little trouble from the UN. Although the Yanks might have a shit-fit about it. If your country has other commodities that the world needs (i.e. oil, etc) then the fallout from leaving the narcotic treaty would be especially minimal.

IMO, the key issue is whether your country has the nads to stand up to the US and say, "fuck it we are going to legalize it".