Loading…

Stuart Seaton

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • Stuart Seaton
    Participant

    Obviously this is a complete waste of time. Thanks for listening (or not) I’ll just continue to derive my right to consume whatever I want (which only at present includes cannabis illegally, when I can get it) from my own anarchist principles and to damn with this nonsense.


  • Stuart Seaton
    Participant

    I’m clicking “save changes” on the relevant page but I’m not sure if it’s going though..


  • Stuart Seaton
    Participant

    Ah there it is!

    I was looking for this earlier. I’m struggling with this site a bit.

    Anyway, I (think) I submitted a proposed amendment, or something better anyway.

    I’ll copy it here too:

    I think the wording of B-12 needs to be more precise, and inclusive:

    – “drugs and alcohol” should just be refered to as “drugs”, since alcohol is a drug. I see no need to make a distinction there.
    – there needs to be more clarity than simply stating that “drug and alcohol use shall not be criminalised” since there are plenty of instances whereby alcohol use (for instance) must be controlled (eg. if it leads to violence or drunk driving etc.) so I have included a caveat in the wording which I hope deals with this issue in a general sense.

    How about this for B-12?

    Personal, self-administration of any drug shall not be criminalised by the state where:
    – the drug is used for medicinal purposes
    – the drug is used for recreational purposes
    – the drug is used for religious worship or spiritual or intellectual or artistic development
    – the drug may potentially cause harm to the individual
    and where:
    – use of the drug does NOT impact the life, or threaten the well-being of a third person

    It’s difficult to get the wording right on that last point, since it’s a caveat which I feel has to be there but at the same time could potentially be used to restrict civil liberties unnecessarily, eg. the cannabis psychosis debate: founded upon consensus more than scientific fact. The situation we are in today with cannabis prohibition is largely founded upon certain popular myths surrounding it, eg. the misconception that it impairs the ability of individuals to perform certain functions. So how this caveat is used could be open to misinterpretation and abuse I feel. Nonetheless, I propose the above amendment for now, with a view to opening a discussion.

    And I think there should be a further section, or sub section that protects the rights of citizens to produce their own drugs (specifically, but not restricted to cannabis). Of course, there are a number of issues surrounding the general wording of this which need to be considered, such as dangers posed from production facilities and how to legislate to prevent someone producing a batch of dodgy pills and flooding the market. Ideally, a fully liberalised, regulated drugs market is the best way forward for this since there will always be a demand for certain drugs, and it’s better they are produced safely and controlled, and this also reduces the potential for individuals to seek alternative, potentially more harmful substitutes for a drug they may be unable to source on the black market. I understand this is a controversial area for many people, however I think it is better there is something written in to the constitution which protects certains rights, otherwise the alternative is no rights at all and we end up in the situation/mess we are in today.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)