Opponents of a proposed bill to legalize marijuana in Germany did not muster enough support to block the measure in legislative body representing states, meaning it will now continue through the process. Germany’s legislature is composed of two main bodies: the Bundestag, which is comprised of democratically elected lawmakers, and the Bundesrat (or Federal Council), […]
From an article here:
The draft law would make it legal for people over 18 to possess up to 25 grams (0.9 ounces) of cannabis and to cultivate up to three plants for personal use.
There will also be approved so-called cultivation associations. Often referred to as “cannabis social clubs,” they provide their members with homegrown cannabis products.
I don’t mind people making a bit of profit off of it. Gambling, tobacco, alcohol and all sorts of other addictive things are for profit, so why exclude cannabis?
As long as the money is moved out of the hands of career criminals and moved in to the hands of people that can use that money to benefit society via taxes and such.
I agree, as long as it’s well regulated it should be fine to sell at a profit.
But maybe the problem for legislators is that the definition of well regulated is unknown, as the legalization in itself is kind of an experiment, and we don’t know for sure how it will work out.
To begin with I’d be happy with keeping regulations in line with alcohol, no sales to under 18s, if your supplier can see you’re too inebriated they have to refuse to sell you more etc.
It would be an experiment, but I fail to see how it would be worse than the black market which is by it’s nature, wholly unregulated.
I agree 100%, IMO it’s not that much of an experiment, but when politicians are strongly warned by police, as they are here, I think that makes them cautious, because if it fails, they were warned about it.
As I see it, legalizing Cannabis would reduce crime, especially help to not finance gangs and organized crime. It’s a no-brainer IMO.
Gambling, tobacco, alcohol and all sorts of other addictive things are for profit, so why exclude cannabis?
I would advocate for treating other addictions the same way too.
Alcohol and tobacco ads are targeting young people because they’re more likely to develop a lifelong addiction if you start them early enough. Gambling machines are set up to make people believe they can beat the system, so they stay hooked.
I just don’t think these should be legitimate business models.
I agree with your line of thinking, but I think being practical that things like smoking and drinking, whilst they should always be discouraged, will always be a part of human nature.
If you can balance the harm these addictive things do with sin taxes that make a net benefit to society, I think you’re making the best of a bad situation.
The alcohol test is carried out using a breathalyser and, if positive, is confirmed by a blood sample. This works well because it measures the concentration of alcohol still in your blood. A positive test means that the driver is (still) drunk and not fit to drive.
The test method for THC is not as accurate. A urine sample can still be positive 3(!) days after smoking a joint. This is even worse with hair samples or if the person smokes occasionally.
Limiting testing to THC alone would be a sensible decision. At the moment they also test for THC-COOH, which is a metabolic by-product and lasts much longer in the body.
Without a change in testing methodology, you could lose your driving licence on Monday because you smoked a single joint on Friday. A bottle of vodka on Saturday? No problemo.
Interesting, thanks for the explanation. I’d been looking forward to it being legal here but not if it means I risk this. I guess it will be a few times a year treat if I’m spending a week off work at home just chilling out.
That’s a separate issue, and just because the old system for a well established substance that has been available for a 1000 years i bad, doesn’t mean we have to introduce a new one.
I actually like it. Legalize it but make it non-commercial so nobody profits from other people’s addiction.
Not familiar with german politics - would you mind giving a quick tl/dr of how it is supposed to work?
From an article here: The draft law would make it legal for people over 18 to possess up to 25 grams (0.9 ounces) of cannabis and to cultivate up to three plants for personal use.
There will also be approved so-called cultivation associations. Often referred to as “cannabis social clubs,” they provide their members with homegrown cannabis products.
I don’t mind people making a bit of profit off of it. Gambling, tobacco, alcohol and all sorts of other addictive things are for profit, so why exclude cannabis?
As long as the money is moved out of the hands of career criminals and moved in to the hands of people that can use that money to benefit society via taxes and such.
I agree, as long as it’s well regulated it should be fine to sell at a profit.
But maybe the problem for legislators is that the definition of well regulated is unknown, as the legalization in itself is kind of an experiment, and we don’t know for sure how it will work out.
To begin with I’d be happy with keeping regulations in line with alcohol, no sales to under 18s, if your supplier can see you’re too inebriated they have to refuse to sell you more etc.
It would be an experiment, but I fail to see how it would be worse than the black market which is by it’s nature, wholly unregulated.
I agree 100%, IMO it’s not that much of an experiment, but when politicians are strongly warned by police, as they are here, I think that makes them cautious, because if it fails, they were warned about it.
As I see it, legalizing Cannabis would reduce crime, especially help to not finance gangs and organized crime. It’s a no-brainer IMO.
I would advocate for treating other addictions the same way too.
Alcohol and tobacco ads are targeting young people because they’re more likely to develop a lifelong addiction if you start them early enough. Gambling machines are set up to make people believe they can beat the system, so they stay hooked.
I just don’t think these should be legitimate business models.
I agree with your line of thinking, but I think being practical that things like smoking and drinking, whilst they should always be discouraged, will always be a part of human nature.
If you can balance the harm these addictive things do with sin taxes that make a net benefit to society, I think you’re making the best of a bad situation.
Wake me up when they also update the traffic laws. Positive drug test because you smoked a week ago? There goes your drivers licence.
German traffic laws are not my area of expertise, but can you also lose your license if you drank alcohol a week ago?
It’s not entirely a 1-to-1 comparison, but weed doesn’t have That long an impact on reaction times.
The alcohol test is carried out using a breathalyser and, if positive, is confirmed by a blood sample. This works well because it measures the concentration of alcohol still in your blood. A positive test means that the driver is (still) drunk and not fit to drive.
The test method for THC is not as accurate. A urine sample can still be positive 3(!) days after smoking a joint. This is even worse with hair samples or if the person smokes occasionally.
Limiting testing to THC alone would be a sensible decision. At the moment they also test for THC-COOH, which is a metabolic by-product and lasts much longer in the body.
Without a change in testing methodology, you could lose your driving licence on Monday because you smoked a single joint on Friday. A bottle of vodka on Saturday? No problemo.
Interesting, thanks for the explanation. I’d been looking forward to it being legal here but not if it means I risk this. I guess it will be a few times a year treat if I’m spending a week off work at home just chilling out.
Then how in the world does that work for beer and other alcohol sales in Germany??
In Bavaria beer is considered food.
That’s a separate issue, and just because the old system for a well established substance that has been available for a 1000 years i bad, doesn’t mean we have to introduce a new one.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.