[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.
Because the federal government of the USA is slow to update its laws.
Where 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.
"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.
As others said: foreign, exotic and important.
But hopefully I added an explanation of why.
Its entertaining to watch.
What English speakers called "cinéma vérité," French speakers called "direct cinema."
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.
